State v. Carlton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Carlton

218 P.3d 178, 231 Or. App. 376, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1535

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 14, 2009

Docket07C44504; A138025

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 P.3d 178 (State v. Carlton) 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. Carlton, 218 P.3d 178, 231 Or. App. 376, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1535 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated theft in the first degree, ORS 164.057, and criminal mistreatment in the first degree, ORS 163.205, and was sentenced to 24 months of probation. The court also imposed restitution in the amount of $76,362.88. On appeal, defendant contends that he objected to the imposition of restitution and, therefore, that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without a hearing. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the concession. See ORS 137.106(5) (providing that, where a defendant objects to restitution, “the court shall allow the defendant to be heard on such issue”); State v. Zaragoza, 220 Or App 526, 188 P3d 308 (2008) (remanding for resentencing where the trial court failed to permit the defendant to be heard on his objection to restitution). Accordingly, the case must be remanded for resentencing.

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 aggravated theft in the first degree, ORS 164.057, and criminal mistreatment in the first degree, ORS 163.205, and was sentenced to 24 months of probation. The court also imposed restitution in the amount of $76,362.88. On appeal, defendant contends that he objected to the imposition of restitution and, therefore, that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without a hearing. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the concession. See ORS 137.106(5) (providing that, where a defendant objects to restitution, “the court shall allow the defendant to be heard on such issue”); State v. Zaragoza, 220 Or App 526, 188 P3d 308 (2008) (remanding for resentencing where the trial court failed to permit the defendant to be heard on his objection to restitution). Accordingly, the case must be remanded for resentencing.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 P.3d 178, 231 Or. App. 376, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carlton-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack