State v. Demalignon

884 P.2d 588, 131 Or. App. 259, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1577
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedNovember 2, 1994
Docket93-1832-C-1; CA A81046
StatusPublished

This text of 884 P.2d 588 (State v. Demalignon) 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. Demalignon, 884 P.2d 588, 131 Or. App. 259, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1577 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction for criminal mischief in the first degree. ORS 164.365. At trial, he objected to the imposition of restitution because the trial court failed to consider defendant’s ability to pay. He assigns error to the sentence of restitution. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing restitution, because it failed to consider defendant’s ability to pay. ORS 137.106(2)(b). We accept the concession and remand for resentencing.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

Related

§ 164.365
Oregon § 164.365
§ 137.106
Oregon § 137.106

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
884 P.2d 588, 131 Or. App. 259, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-demalignon-orctapp-1994.