State v. McBee

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. McBee

131 P.3d 819, 204 Or. App. 687, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 307

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 15, 2006

DocketCR0102586; A124484

StatusPublished

This text of 131 P.3d 819 (State v. McBee) 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. McBee, 131 P.3d 819, 204 Or. App. 687, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, ORS 164.135, and possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(4)(b), and received probationary-sentences on each count. On the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle conviction, the trial court imposed restitution in the amount of $1,673.50. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing restitution for damage to the stolen vehicle, as the evidence at sentencing indicated that another individual had caused the damage before defendant came into possession of it. The state concedes that it failed to establish a causal connection between defendant’s conduct and the damage to the vehicle, and that restitution for damage to the vehicle therefore was not properly imposed in this instance. See generally State v. Edson, 329 Or 127, 985 P2d 1253 (1999). The state notes, however, that the trial court properly could impose restitution for towing and storage fees. We agree with defendant that the trial court erred in imposing restitution for damage to the vehicle. We further agree with the state that restitution for towing and storage fees was properly imposed, but we are unable to determine how much of the total amount awarded was for those purposes.

Sentences vacated and remanded with instructions to recalculate restitution; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, ORS 164.135, and possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(4)(b), and received probationary-sentences on each count. On the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle conviction, the trial court imposed restitution in the amount of $1,673.50. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing restitution for damage to the stolen vehicle, as the evidence at sentencing indicated that another individual had caused the damage before defendant came into possession of it. The state concedes that it failed to establish a causal connection between defendant’s conduct and the damage to the vehicle, and that restitution for damage to the vehicle therefore was not properly imposed in this instance. See generally State v. Edson, 329 Or 127, 985 P2d 1253 (1999). The state notes, however, that the trial court properly could impose restitution for towing and storage fees. We agree with defendant that the trial court erred in imposing restitution for damage to the vehicle. We further agree with the state that restitution for towing and storage fees was properly imposed, but we are unable to determine how much of the total amount awarded was for those purposes.

Sentences vacated and remanded with instructions to recalculate restitution; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 P.3d 819, 204 Or. App. 687, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcbee-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack