State v. Denham

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Denham

153 P.3d 133, 211 Or. App. 98, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 237

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 14, 2007

DocketD045457M; A128945

StatusPublished

This text of 153 P.3d 133 (State v. Denham) 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. Denham, 153 P.3d 133, 211 Or. App. 98, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 237 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful entry into a motor vehicle. ORS 164.272. At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $820 in restitution to the vehicle’s owner for damage to the vehicle’s steering column. Defendant denied damaging the steering column and objected to the restitution order, but the court ruled that restitution was appropriate because it was “much more likely than not” that defendant had caused the damage.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering restitution. He argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea included only entering the vehicle intending to commit theft, but that he did not admit to damaging the vehicle. The state concedes that the restitution order was erroneous. We agree and accept the concession. See State v. Seggerman, 167 Or App 140, 145, 3 P3d 168 (2000) (“[A] defendant cannot be required to pay restitution for pecuniary damages arising out of criminal activity for which he was not convicted or which he did not admit having committed.”).

Sentences vacated; 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 unlawful entry into a motor vehicle. ORS 164.272. At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $820 in restitution to the vehicle’s owner for damage to the vehicle’s steering column. Defendant denied damaging the steering column and objected to the restitution order, but the court ruled that restitution was appropriate because it was “much more likely than not” that defendant had caused the damage.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering restitution. He argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea included only entering the vehicle intending to commit theft, but that he did not admit to damaging the vehicle. The state concedes that the restitution order was erroneous. We agree and accept the concession. See State v. Seggerman, 167 Or App 140, 145, 3 P3d 168 (2000) (“[A] defendant cannot be required to pay restitution for pecuniary damages arising out of criminal activity for which he was not convicted or which he did not admit having committed.”).

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 P.3d 133, 211 Or. App. 98, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-denham-orctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack