State v. Hobson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hobson

831 P.2d 722, 113 Or. App. 253, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1054

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 27, 1992

Docket881411M, 900557M; CA A71391, CA A71392

StatusPublished

This text of 831 P.2d 722 (State v. Hobson) 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. Hobson, 831 P.2d 722, 113 Or. App. 253, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty of public indecency. ORS 163.465. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for 5 years. In addition to the general conditions of probation, the court imposed several special conditions, including a requirement that defendant pay up to $10,000 for counseling costs for the victim.

The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing restitution. There was no showing that defendant was able to pay restitution, and no specific amount of restitution was set by the court. Moreover, the victim did not appear at the sentencing and, without her testimony, there is insufficient evidence of a causal connection between defendant’s offense and the need for counseling. We accept the concession.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty of public indecency. ORS 163.465. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for 5 years. In addition to the general conditions of probation, the court imposed several special conditions, including a requirement that defendant pay up to $10,000 for counseling costs for the victim.

The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing restitution. There was no showing that defendant was able to pay restitution, and no specific amount of restitution was set by the court. Moreover, the victim did not appear at the sentencing and, without her testimony, there is insufficient evidence of a causal connection between defendant’s offense and the need for counseling. We accept the concession.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 P.2d 722, 113 Or. App. 253, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hobson-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack