State v. Barker

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Barker

287 P.3d 1179, 252 Or. App. 357, 2012 WL 4108018, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1144

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 19, 2012

Docket110569; A148608

StatusPublished

This text of 287 P.3d 1179 (State v. Barker) 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. Barker, 287 P.3d 1179, 252 Or. App. 357, 2012 WL 4108018, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1144 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of telephonic harassment based on a phone call that occurred on February 23, 2011. The trial court then ordered defendant to pay restitution to the victim for various expenses, including some expenses — namely, the cost of a new phone, medical expenses, and part of the victim’s gas expenditures- — that resulted from conduct that occurred before the date of the telephonic harassment. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by awarding restitution for damages that arose out of conduct for which defendant had not been convicted and did not admit having committed. The state, for its part, concedes that the trial court erred in that regard, and that the court on remand must separate out those damages resulting from conduct that occurred before the telephonic harassment on February 23, 2011. See State v. Carson, 238 Or App 188, 243 P3d 73 (2010) (restitution awards are generally limited to damages resulting from crimes of conviction or other criminal activities to which the defendant has admitted). We agree and accept the concession.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of telephonic harassment based on a phone call that occurred on February 23, 2011. The trial court then ordered defendant to pay restitution to the victim for various expenses, including some expenses — namely, the cost of a new phone, medical expenses, and part of the victim’s gas expenditures- — that resulted from conduct that occurred before the date of the telephonic harassment. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by awarding restitution for damages that arose out of conduct for which defendant had not been convicted and did not admit having committed. The state, for its part, concedes that the trial court erred in that regard, and that the court on remand must separate out those damages resulting from conduct that occurred before the telephonic harassment on February 23, 2011. See State v. Carson, 238 Or App 188, 243 P3d 73 (2010) (restitution awards are generally limited to damages resulting from crimes of conviction or other criminal activities to which the defendant has admitted). We agree and accept the concession.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 P.3d 1179, 252 Or. App. 357, 2012 WL 4108018, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barker-orctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack