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. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Oregon

May 1, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSEF GRANT TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted October 18, 2018

          Crook County Circuit Court 15CR40469; Gary Lee Williams, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kristin A. Carveth, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Matthew Maile, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Garrett, Judge pro tempore.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a supplemental judgment awarding restitution, assigning error to the trial court's imposition of restitution 331 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction. Defendant argues that the trial court's imposition of restitution more than 90 days after entry of the judgment violated ORS 137.106(1)(a) because the delay was not justified by good cause. Held: The trial court did not err in imposing restitution 331 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction. ORS 137.106(1)(a) requires only that the state present certain evidence to the court within 90 days; it imposes no time limit for the court to act on that evidence.

         [297 Or.App. 399] GARRETT, J. PRO TEMPORE.

         ORS 137.106(1)(a) provides that, if the state seeks restitution in a criminal case, the prosecutor must present the trial court with supporting evidence "at the time of sentencing or within 90 days after entry of the judgment." The court may extend that period upon a showing of good cause. In this case, the trial court imposed restitution in a supplemental judgment entered 331 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction. On appeal, defendant argues that the delay in entering the supplemental judgment for restitution was not justified by good cause. However, the current text of ORS 137.106(1) does not require a supplemental judgment imposing restitution to be entered within any particular time after the judgment of conviction. Therefore, we affirm.

         The relevant facts are procedural and not in dispute. After entering a plea of no contest to several charges, defendant was sentenced on February 24, 2016, and the judgment of conviction was entered on that date. Before the sentencing hearing, the state filed a "restitution worksheet" requesting restitution under ORS 137.106, and defendant filed a motion requesting a restitution hearing. At sentencing, defendant's attorney asked the court to set a separate restitution hearing because he needed "some time to digest it further." The court agreed with the attorney's request. As a result of a series of events not relevant to our review, a restitution hearing was held on January 12, 2017, and a supplemental judgment ordering defendant to pay $6, 450.89 in restitution was entered on January 20, 2017-331 days after the original judgment was entered.

         On appeal, defendant's sole challenge to the restitution award is that the trial court violated ORS 137.106 because "good cause" did not justify entering the supplemental judgment 331 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction. The state contends that the trial court correctly found good cause for the delay. We review for legal error. State v. Biscotti, 219 Or.App. 296, 299, 182 P.3d 269 (2008).

         ORS 137.106(1)(a) provides, in part:

"When a person is convicted of a crime, or a violation as described in ORS 153.008, that has resulted in economic damages, the district attorney shall investigate and [297 Or.App. 400] present to the court, at the time of sentencing or within 90 days after entry of the judgment, evidence of the nature and amount of the damages. The court may extend the time by which the presentation must be made for good cause."

         The plain text of the statute provides that the state is obligated to "present" restitution evidence to the court within 90 days of the entry of judgment. The court may extend the time for that presentation on a showing of good cause.[1]

         Below, defendant did not articulate any argument that the state had failed to "present to the court *** evidence of the nature and amount of the damages" within 90 days after entry of the judgment. ORS l37.lO6(1)(a). Rather, he argued that that statutory text required the court itself to determine the amount of restitution and enter judgment ...


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.