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. Benz

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 13, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BILL ALLEN BENZ, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted June 21, 2016.

         Multnomah County Circuit Court 130833938, Jean Kerr Maurer, Judge.

          Erin J. Snyder Severe argued the cause for appellant.

          With her on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent.

          With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         After being convicted of second-degree burglary, ORS 164.215, first-degree theft, ORS 164.055, second-degree theft, ORS 164.045, and second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354, defendant appeals a supplemental judgment for restitution in the amount of $32, 227.95, arguing that he was not convicted of, and never admitted, 11 of the 42 crimes underlying that award. The state does not contend on appeal that the trial court's restitution award is correct, but instead argues that defendant's arguments are unpreserved because he did not identify those 11 specific claims below, and, if the court committed plain error, it is not appropriate to correct the error because defendant had the record necessary to formulate a precise objection below.

         Held: The court committed plain error in awarding $32, 227.95 in restitution because, as reflected by the record, some of the claims underlying that award arose from crimes that defendant never admitted and of which he was not convicted. Further, it is appropriate to exercise discretion to correct the plain error because the error here was grave [289 Or. 367] and because this court has consistently exercised discretion to correct plain errors in restitution awards.

         [289 Or. 368] GARRETT, J.

         After pleading no contest, defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary, ORS 164.215; first-degree theft, ORS 164.055; second-degree theft, ORS 164.045; and second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354. He appeals a supplemental judgment for restitution in the amount of $32, 227.95, arguing that he was not convicted of, and never admitted, some of the crimes underlying that award. We conclude that the trial court plainly erred in awarding that amount of restitution and exercise our discretion to remand for resentencing.

         We review for legal error the trial court's legal conclusions regarding a restitution award. State v. Carson, 238 Or.App. 188, 191, 243 P.3d 73 (2010).

         The facts are undisputed. Defendant and his stepson, Schneider, were arrested for a series of thefts throughout Portland. The indictment contained 51 counts; Schneider was charged in all of them, but defendant in only 30 of the counts, which alleged conduct from December 2012 through February 2013. Defendant ...


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.