State v. Thompson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 06-26-2013
  • Case #: A147752
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under Article I, section 42 of the Oregon Constitution, a victim who has been economically harmed has a right to restitution even after Defendant is sentenced.

Defendant appealed an amended judgment of the trial court ordering the Defendant to pay additional restitution to a crime victim months after the entry of judgment. Defendant was driving in the city of Monmouth and hit a city-owned stop sign and light pole. After Defendant pled guilty, the Monmouth Public Works Department filed a victim-loss statement with the State for the stop sign. The Monmouth Power and Light Department separately filed the cost of the light pole. The State presented the light pole figure immediately before the sentencing hearing. The Court determined that it was too late and did not include it in the judgment. The City of Monmouth claimed that its constitutional right as a crime victim was violated. Months later, the court entered an amended judgment ordering restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that the amended judgment was more than 90 days after the original judgment, so under ORS 137.106 (2011), the trial court lacked authority to impose additional restitution in a resentence. The Court dismissed that argument because the statute does not constrain the trial court from resentencing a defendant in order to remedy a violation of a victim’s constitutional right. Rather, it puts limitations on the trial court when initially ordering an amount of restitution to be paid. Thus, under Article I, section 42, the trial court was allowed to resentence Defendant to correct the violation of the victim's rights. Affirmed.

Advanced Search