State v. Doty

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Doty

41 P.3d 445, 179 Or. App. 665, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 298

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 20, 2002

DocketCF990018; A108905

StatusPublished

This text of 41 P.3d 445 (State v. Doty) 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. Doty, 41 P.3d 445, 179 Or. App. 665, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, ORS 164.135, and was sentenced to a dispositional departure sentence of six months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a compensatory fine of $292. On appeal, he challenges the imposition of the departure sentence as well as the order to pay the fine. Defendant’s challenge to the departure sentence is not preserved, and we do not consider it. State v. Crain, 177 Or App 627, 33 P3d 1050 (2001) (declining to consider similar argument due to lack of preservation).¹ Concerning the imposition of the compensatory fine of $292, the state concedes that the record in this case does not support a finding of a causal nexus between defendant’s crime and the damages suffered by the victim. The state’s concession is well-founded, and we accept it. See State v. Donahue, 165 Or App 143, 145, 995 P2d 1202 (2000) (“A compensatory fine may be awarded only if the trial court finds that the victim has suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the defendant’s criminal activities.”).

Compensatory fine vacated; remanded to trial court for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, ORS 164.135, and was sentenced to a dispositional departure sentence of six months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a compensatory fine of $292. On appeal, he challenges the imposition of the departure sentence as well as the order to pay the fine. Defendant’s challenge to the departure sentence is not preserved, and we do not consider it. State v. Crain, 177 Or App 627, 33 P3d 1050 (2001) (declining to consider similar argument due to lack of preservation).¹ Concerning the imposition of the compensatory fine of $292, the state concedes that the record in this case does not support a finding of a causal nexus between defendant’s crime and the damages suffered by the victim. The state’s concession is well-founded, and we accept it. See State v. Donahue, 165 Or App 143, 145, 995 P2d 1202 (2000) (“A compensatory fine may be awarded only if the trial court finds that the victim has suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the defendant’s criminal activities.”).

Compensatory fine vacated; remanded to trial court for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 P.3d 445, 179 Or. App. 665, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-doty-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack