State v. Collins
This text of 779 P.2d 627 (State v. Collins) 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.
Opinion
Defendant appeals his conviction for theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. He challenges only a condition of probation requiring that he pay $50,000 in restitution to the victim,1 arguing that the court failed to take into account his financial resources, as required by ORS 137.106, in determining the amount of restitution.2
The court placed defendant on probation for five years and ordered that he serve one year in the county jail. He was to pay the restitution in its entirety 30 days before the expiration of probation, or within five years. At the time that it ordered restitution, the court had available the presentence investigation report and defendant’s statements at the sentencing hearing regarding his financial situation. The presentence report indicated that defendant was working for a temporary service, that he had last worked for it three months before, that he at times had held odd jobs through the Employment Division and that he had had other short term jobs. The report concluded that defendant’s work history was “somewhat unstable and sporadic.”
The report also indicated that defendant owed $60 on a traffic fine, had a $500 dental bill outstanding and paid $370 per month rent. The only asset that he reported was a 1973 [575]*575automobile. Defendant’s domestic associate was employed at $8 per hour. They have a 13-year-old child. Nothing at the restitution hearing altered that economic picture.3
We review for abuse of discretion. State v. Deloge, 55 Or App 742, 744, 639 P2d 1293 (1982). From the record, there is no evidence that defendant has sufficient assets or will be able to obtain, let alone retain, a job that will allow him to pay the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court.
Order of restitution vacated; remanded for reconsideration of restitution; otherwise affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
779 P.2d 627, 98 Or. App. 572, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 1443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-collins-orctapp-1989.