State v. Freeman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Freeman

831 P.2d 84, 113 Or. App. 246, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1052

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 27, 1992

Docket90CR0693; CA A66277

StatusPublished

This text of 831 P.2d 84 (State v. Freeman) 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. Freeman, 831 P.2d 84, 113 Or. App. 246, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1052 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSSMAN, P. J.

After defendant’s conviction for criminal mischief, the trial court suspended the sentence and ordered a five-year period of probation. Defendant seeks modification of a condition of probation ordering her to pay $11,198 in restitution, attorney fees and the crime victims’ assessment from the proceeds of the sale of her home.

Defendant owned the home in which she and her husband lived during their marriage. In 1989, the parties separated and defendant obtained a restraining order that barred her husband from entering her home for any purpose, including retrieving his personal property. While dissolution proceedings were pending, defendant destroyed certain items of her husband’s personal property. Also during that time, she sold the home in a transaction unrelated to the dissolution proceeding.

The state has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, because the restitution has been paid, as ordered, out of the proceeds of defendant’s sale of her house. We deny the motion.

The general rule is that voluntary satisfaction of a judgment — in civil and criminal cases — forecloses an appeal from that judgment. Washington v. Cleland, 49 Or 12, 14, 88 P 305 (1907). However, the record does not show that defendant voluntarily paid the restitution. Because conditions of probation cannot be stayed pending appeal, State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319, 541 P2d 811 (1975), she had no choice but to pay the restitution as ordered. Under those circumstances, we cannot say that satisfaction of the restitution order was voluntary. Without there having been shown that there was a voluntary satisfaction, there is no ground for dismissal.

Motion to dismiss denied.

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

ROSSMAN, P. J.

After defendant’s conviction for criminal mischief, the trial court suspended the sentence and ordered a five-year period of probation. Defendant seeks modification of a condition of probation ordering her to pay $11,198 in restitution, attorney fees and the crime victims’ assessment from the proceeds of the sale of her home.

Defendant owned the home in which she and her husband lived during their marriage. In 1989, the parties separated and defendant obtained a restraining order that barred her husband from entering her home for any purpose, including retrieving his personal property. While dissolution proceedings were pending, defendant destroyed certain items of her husband’s personal property. Also during that time, she sold the home in a transaction unrelated to the dissolution proceeding.

The state has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, because the restitution has been paid, as ordered, out of the proceeds of defendant’s sale of her house. We deny the motion.

The general rule is that voluntary satisfaction of a judgment — in civil and criminal cases — forecloses an appeal from that judgment. Washington v. Cleland, 49 Or 12, 14, 88 P 305 (1907). However, the record does not show that defendant voluntarily paid the restitution. Because conditions of probation cannot be stayed pending appeal, State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319, 541 P2d 811 (1975), she had no choice but to pay the restitution as ordered. Under those circumstances, we cannot say that satisfaction of the restitution order was voluntary. Without there having been shown that there was a voluntary satisfaction, there is no ground for dismissal.

Motion to dismiss denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 P.2d 84, 113 Or. App. 246, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-freeman-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack