Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Aguilar-Ramos

Court of Appeals of Oregon

April 12, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GERARDO ENRIQUE AGUILAR-RAMOS, aka Gerardo Enrique Aguilarramos, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted February 9, 2016

         Multnomah County Circuit Court 130748629; Karin Johana Immergut, Judge.

          Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and David O. Ferry, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a supplemental judgment imposing $2, 663 in restitution. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in determining that there was "good cause" to impose restitution beyond the 90-day timeline established by ORS 137.106(1)(a). Held: The trial court erred in imposing restitution 203 days after entry of the judgment. In this instance, the actions, or inactions, of the prosecutor were the catalyst that led to the delay in holding the restitution hearing.

         Reversed.

          TOOKEY, J.

         Defendant, who was convicted of fourth-degree assault and resisting arrest after a guilty plea, argues that the trial court erred in imposing $2, 663 in restitution. The judgment of conviction was entered on November 13, 2013, but restitution was not determined until June 4, 2014. On appeal, defendant raises two assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in determining that there was "good cause" to impose restitution beyond the 90-day timeline established by ORS 137.106(1)(a). In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it imposed $2, 663 in restitution without sufficient evidence to support that award.[1] For the reasons that follow, we reverse the supplemental judgment.[2]

         The relevant facts are undisputed. On November 12, 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault and resisting arrest. At that time, the trial court left restitution "open [for] 90 days." On November 13, 2013, the trial court entered the judgment against defendant. The trial court set a restitution hearing for February 7, 2014, 86 days after entry of the judgment. However, an ice storm caused the county to close the court and cancel the hearing. Later, the prosecutor explained that he believed that the trial court would reschedule the restitution hearing. In April, the prosecutor rescheduled the hearing himself after realizing that the trial court would not automatically reschedule the cancelled hearing.

         The rescheduled restitution hearing was set for May 14, 2014. About five minutes before the start of that hearing, the prosecutor was called home for a family emergency. The substitute prosecutor was unable to proceed with the restitution hearing because the prior prosecutor had not provided either the substitute prosecutor or the defense with documentation regarding damages. Later, the prosecutor explained that he thought the state's restitution clerk had sent the defense the restitution documents, but that he had failed to confirm that that had indeed been done. The prosecutor acknowledged that it was his responsibility to ensure that the documents were received by the defense, and that relying on the restitution clerk to perform that task was "not a great excuse."

         Again, the restitution hearing was rescheduled and held on June 4, 2014, 203 days after the entry of judgment. At that hearing, the trial court found that the delay in rescheduling the restitution hearing following the February 7 ice storm was the fault of the prosecutor, stating:

"In this case, I do find that it is the DA's office's delay because of the nature of the hearing and the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.