State v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Miller

606 P.2d 689, 44 Or. App. 625, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2256

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 19, 1980

Docket22744, CA 13673

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 606 P.2d 689 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 606 P.2d 689, 44 Or. App. 625, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2256 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

*627 JOSEPH, P.J.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of :heft in the first degree. At sentencing the judge ordered restitution to the victim in the amount of ¡54,964, but he failed to schedule the payments pursuant to ORS 161.675(1). On appeal, this court renanded the case for resentencing to correct that error. State v. Miller, 37 Or App 108, 586 P2d 122 (1978). At ■esentencing the court did set up a schedule for repaynent and also purportedly imposed additional restituion in the amount of $450 for the expenses incurred oy the county in providing defendant’s court-appointed :ounsel. On appeal from resentencing order on renand, defendant argues that the court erred in inxeasing the sanction imposed. The state responds that such error was waived by defendant’s failure to make imely objection.

Citing State v. Thompson, 25 Or App 511, 514-15, 649 P2d 1292 (1976), the state concedes that the resenencing court was without power to impose costs upon efendant in addition to the restitution originally •rdered. Although the present case was simply revers-d and remanded per curiam, the cases cited 1 should lave indicated to the resentencing court that the only rror was an omission: failure to establish a schedule f repayment. The resentencing court was without ower to assess additional sanction or otherwise deal arther with the underlying valid sentence. See State ex rel Gladden v. Kelly, 213 Or 197, 202, 324 P2d 486 1958); State v. Stackman, 43 Or App 235, 603 P2d 363 1979).

Ordinarily defects in the terms of restitution are aived by failure of the defendant to make timely bjection pursuant to ORS 137.106(3). State v. Keys, 41 Or App 379, 381, 597 P2d 1266 (1979); State v. Daniels, 1 Or App 243, 248, 597 P2d 1277 (1979). Here, the *628 defendant has not waived his objection to the increasing of the sanction, an act which the resentencing court was without any authority to do. See State v. Braughton, 28 Or App 891, 893-94, n 2, 561 P2d 1040 (1977).

Affirmed as modified and remanded with instructions to vacate that portion of the resentencing order imposing costs.

1

State v. Calderilla, 34 Or App 1007, 580 P2d 578 (1978); State v. Ewing, 36 Or App 573, 585 P2d 34 (1978).

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

*627 JOSEPH, P.J.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of :heft in the first degree. At sentencing the judge ordered restitution to the victim in the amount of ¡54,964, but he failed to schedule the payments pursuant to ORS 161.675(1). On appeal, this court renanded the case for resentencing to correct that error. State v. Miller, 37 Or App 108, 586 P2d 122 (1978). At ■esentencing the court did set up a schedule for repaynent and also purportedly imposed additional restituion in the amount of $450 for the expenses incurred oy the county in providing defendant’s court-appointed :ounsel. On appeal from resentencing order on renand, defendant argues that the court erred in inxeasing the sanction imposed. The state responds that such error was waived by defendant’s failure to make imely objection.

Citing State v. Thompson, 25 Or App 511, 514-15, 649 P2d 1292 (1976), the state concedes that the resenencing court was without power to impose costs upon efendant in addition to the restitution originally •rdered. Although the present case was simply revers-d and remanded per curiam, the cases cited 1 should lave indicated to the resentencing court that the only rror was an omission: failure to establish a schedule f repayment. The resentencing court was without ower to assess additional sanction or otherwise deal arther with the underlying valid sentence. See State ex rel Gladden v. Kelly, 213 Or 197, 202, 324 P2d 486 1958); State v. Stackman, 43 Or App 235, 603 P2d 363 1979).

Ordinarily defects in the terms of restitution are aived by failure of the defendant to make timely bjection pursuant to ORS 137.106(3). State v. Keys, 41 Or App 379, 381, 597 P2d 1266 (1979); State v. Daniels, 1 Or App 243, 248, 597 P2d 1277 (1979). Here, the *628 defendant has not waived his objection to the increasing of the sanction, an act which the resentencing court was without any authority to do. See State v. Braughton, 28 Or App 891, 893-94, n 2, 561 P2d 1040 (1977).

Affirmed as modified and remanded with instructions to vacate that portion of the resentencing order imposing costs.

1

State v. Calderilla, 34 Or App 1007, 580 P2d 578 (1978); State v. Ewing, 36 Or App 573, 585 P2d 34 (1978).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 P.2d 689, 44 Or. App. 625, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-orctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack