State v. McDonald

306 P.3d 660, 257 Or. App. 101, 2013 WL 2903548, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 685
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJune 12, 2013
Docket11CR0923; A151156
StatusPublished

This text of 306 P.3d 660 (State v. McDonald) 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. McDonald, 306 P.3d 660, 257 Or. App. 101, 2013 WL 2903548, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 685 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of negotiating a bad check. ORS 165.065. As part of the sentence, the trial court imposed restitution in the amount of $2,236.37. On appeal, defendant asserts that the court erred in imposing restitution in the absence of a causal relationship between her criminal conduct and the victim’s economic loss. The state concedes that “the trial court erred when it ordered defendant to pay restitution for damages not caused by defendant’s offense of negotiating a bad check.” We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 181, 637 P2d 602 (1981) (for imposition of restitution to be proper, a defendant’s criminal activity must be the cause of pecuniary damage). Accordingly, the case must be remanded for resentencing.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Dillon
637 P.2d 602 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 P.3d 660, 257 Or. App. 101, 2013 WL 2903548, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcdonald-orctapp-2013.