- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
- Date Filed: 07-24-2013
- Case #: A145834
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Wollheim, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Nakamoto, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment granting restitution to Defendant's victim. Victim gave her restitution information to the district attorney’s office in a timely manner. However, the victim's advocate failed to forward the provided information and the victim was not awarded restitution. The victim asserted a constitutional right to receive prompt restitution. The trial court held that the victim was entitled to restitution. Defendant appealed. Defendant argued that under ORS 137.106, the trial court did not have the authority to award restitution more than 90 days after the entry of judgment. Under State v. Barrett, the Court stated that under the Constitution a remedy may invalidate a “ruling of a court”, but not a "conviction or adjudication". In Barrett, the Court held that vacating a defendant’s sentence and ordering a resentencing is a permissible remedy because the criminal sentencing is a “ruling of a court.” Using that reasoning, the Court held that ORS 137.106 does not prevent the court from imposing the restitution after it was discovered that victim's constitutional right to restitution was violated. Affirmed.