State v. Alvardo

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Alvardo

462 P.3d 322, 302 Or. App. 802

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 11, 2020

DocketA169411

StatusPublished

This text of 462 P.3d 322 (State v. Alvardo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Alvardo, 462 P.3d 322, 302 Or. App. 802 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted February 7, reversed and remanded March 11, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIGUEL ANGEL REBOLLO ALVARDO, aka Miguel Rebollo, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CR73823; A169411 462 P3d 322

Gregory F. Silver, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 302 Or App 802 (2020) 803

PER CURIAM Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of $3,018.18 in restitution to the victim for damages to her vehicle, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that that amount was “reasonable,” as required by ORS 137.103(2)(a) and ORS 31.710(2)(a). The state concedes that the trial court erred, and we agree. In this case, the state presented evidence in support of the restitution award in the form of an estimate of the cost of repairs that the victim had obtained from an auto-body repair shop. In State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 301 Or App 42, 455 P3d 997 (2019), we concluded that evidence of a repair- shop estimate and evidence that the victim’s insurer had paid the amount of that estimate did not suffice to establish that the amount sought for the repairs was reasonable. That case is controlling here. Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Submitted February 7, reversed and remanded March 11, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIGUEL ANGEL REBOLLO ALVARDO, aka Miguel Rebollo, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CR73823; A169411 462 P3d 322

Gregory F. Silver, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 302 Or App 802 (2020) 803

PER CURIAM Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of $3,018.18 in restitution to the victim for damages to her vehicle, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that that amount was “reasonable,” as required by ORS 137.103(2)(a) and ORS 31.710(2)(a). The state concedes that the trial court erred, and we agree. In this case, the state presented evidence in support of the restitution award in the form of an estimate of the cost of repairs that the victim had obtained from an auto-body repair shop. In State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 301 Or App 42, 455 P3d 997 (2019), we concluded that evidence of a repair- shop estimate and evidence that the victim’s insurer had paid the amount of that estimate did not suffice to establish that the amount sought for the repairs was reasonable. That case is controlling here. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 P.3d 322, 302 Or. App. 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-alvardo-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack