State v. Harrison

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Harrison

338 Or. App. 234

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 26, 2025

DocketA183221

StatusUnpublished

This text of 338 Or. App. 234 (State v. Harrison) 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. Harrison, 338 Or. App. 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

234 February 26, 2025 No. 149

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOBBY JOE HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant. Tillamook County Circuit Court 23CR27853; A183221

Jonathan R. Hill, Judge. Submitted January 10, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 234 (2025) 235

LAGESEN, C. J. Defendant pleaded no contest to fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160, and he was sentenced to 90 days in jail. On appeal, defendant seeks reversal of a supplemental judgment ordering him to pay restitution including for dam- age to a truck door. We reverse the supplemental judgment and remand for resentencing.1 Although defendant agreed to pay restitution for damage to property associated with two charges that were dismissed, defendant’s plea did not include an admission or finding regarding damage to a truck door. The state con- cedes that it failed to establish the requisite causal relation- ship between defendant’s criminal activities and damage to the door of a truck. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Smith, 291 Or App 785, 789-92, 420 P3d 644 (2018) (reversing restitution award when the record did not establish that the defendant’s criminal activity was the cause of the victim’s damages). Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

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

234 February 26, 2025 No. 149

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOBBY JOE HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant. Tillamook County Circuit Court 23CR27853; A183221

Jonathan R. Hill, Judge. Submitted January 10, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 234 (2025) 235

LAGESEN, C. J. Defendant pleaded no contest to fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160, and he was sentenced to 90 days in jail. On appeal, defendant seeks reversal of a supplemental judgment ordering him to pay restitution including for dam- age to a truck door. We reverse the supplemental judgment and remand for resentencing.1 Although defendant agreed to pay restitution for damage to property associated with two charges that were dismissed, defendant’s plea did not include an admission or finding regarding damage to a truck door. The state con- cedes that it failed to establish the requisite causal relation- ship between defendant’s criminal activities and damage to the door of a truck. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Smith, 291 Or App 785, 789-92, 420 P3d 644 (2018) (reversing restitution award when the record did not establish that the defendant’s criminal activity was the cause of the victim’s damages). Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 Or. App. 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harrison-orctapp-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack