State v. Higgins

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Higgins

383 P.3d 1003, 282 Or. App. 66, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1345

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

Docket10FE0011AB; A158720

StatusPublished

This text of 383 P.3d 1003 (State v. Higgins) 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. Higgins, 383 P.3d 1003, 282 Or. App. 66, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1345 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence, assigning error to the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence and a $2,000 compensatory fine. We reject defendant’s challenge to the upward departure sentence without written discussion, and we write only to address his challenge to the compensatory fine. Defendant argues, and the state concedes, that the record is insufficient to support the compensatory fine, which was imposed over defendant’s objection. We agree. See State v. Kennedy, 227 Or App 281, 282, 205 P3d 65 (2009) (trial court lacked authority to impose a compensatory fine in the absence of evidence that the victim had sustained any pecuniary loss as a result of defendant’s offenses).

Compensatory fine vacated; remanded for resentenc-ing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence, assigning error to the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence and a $2,000 compensatory fine. We reject defendant’s challenge to the upward departure sentence without written discussion, and we write only to address his challenge to the compensatory fine. Defendant argues, and the state concedes, that the record is insufficient to support the compensatory fine, which was imposed over defendant’s objection. We agree. See State v. Kennedy, 227 Or App 281, 282, 205 P3d 65 (2009) (trial court lacked authority to impose a compensatory fine in the absence of evidence that the victim had sustained any pecuniary loss as a result of defendant’s offenses).

Compensatory fine vacated; remanded for resentenc-ing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 P.3d 1003, 282 Or. App. 66, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-higgins-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack