State v. Sullivan

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Remedies
  • Date Filed: 09-16-2015
  • Case #: A156857
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J.; Nakamoto, J.; & Tookey, J. Per Curiam.
  • Full Text Opinion

A trial court may not impose restitution arising out of dismissed charges when the defendant did not admit the charged criminal conduct. Under ORS 138.222(5), when a trial court errs in imposing restitution a case may only be remanded if there are permissible alternatives a trial court could adopt upon resentencing.

Defendant Sullivan appealed restitution damages imposed in relation to two trucks allegedly stolen by Sullivan, even though the trial court dismissed the charges alleging Sullivan stole the trucks. On appeal the State conceded the trail court erred in imposing restitutionary damages, as a trial court does not have authority to impose restitution arising from dismissed charges when the defendant does not admit the criminal conduct. Defendant further argued, and the State conceded, that the case should not be remanded for resentencing. The Court found that even though the trial court erred in imposing restitution damages, under ORS 138.222(5), which requires remanding for resentencing only if there are permissible alternatives available to the trial court, there were no alternative options the trial court could permissibly adopt upon remand. Restitution award reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search