State v. Marcks

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Marcks

491 P.3d 106, 313 Or. App. 388

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 14, 2021

DocketA173447

StatusPublished

This text of 491 P.3d 106 (State v. Marcks) 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. Marcks, 491 P.3d 106, 313 Or. App. 388 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted June 4; supplemental judgment reversed, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed July 14, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KRISTOPHER LEE MARCKS, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 19CR78217; A173447 491 P3d 106

Ricardo J. Menchaca, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joel C. Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, 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 DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 313 Or App 388 (2021) 389

PER CURIAM Defendant, who pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence, appeals a supple- mental judgment imposing restitution. He argues that the state failed to adduce sufficient evidence that certain hospi- tal expenses incurred by the victim were necessary or rea- sonable. The state concedes that defendant is correct with respect to evidence of the reasonableness of the medical expenses under State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138, 372 P3d 614, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016). We accept that conces- sion, and we do not reach defendant’s remaining arguments. Defendant also argues that the appropriate remedy in this circumstance is to vacate the portion of the supple- mental judgment awarding the hospital expenses without remanding. We agree with the state that the appropriate remedy in this circumstance is to remand for resentencing. See, e.g., State v. Boza, 306 Or App 279, 280, 473 P3d 1161 (2020) (citing State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 365 Or 175, 189, 442 P3d 1092 (2019)). Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

Submitted June 4; supplemental judgment reversed, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed July 14, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KRISTOPHER LEE MARCKS, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 19CR78217; A173447 491 P3d 106

Ricardo J. Menchaca, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joel C. Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, 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 DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 313 Or App 388 (2021) 389

PER CURIAM Defendant, who pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence, appeals a supple- mental judgment imposing restitution. He argues that the state failed to adduce sufficient evidence that certain hospi- tal expenses incurred by the victim were necessary or rea- sonable. The state concedes that defendant is correct with respect to evidence of the reasonableness of the medical expenses under State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138, 372 P3d 614, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016). We accept that conces- sion, and we do not reach defendant’s remaining arguments. Defendant also argues that the appropriate remedy in this circumstance is to vacate the portion of the supple- mental judgment awarding the hospital expenses without remanding. We agree with the state that the appropriate remedy in this circumstance is to remand for resentencing. See, e.g., State v. Boza, 306 Or App 279, 280, 473 P3d 1161 (2020) (citing State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 365 Or 175, 189, 442 P3d 1092 (2019)). Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 P.3d 106, 313 Or. App. 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marcks-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack