State v. Prentice
This text of 825 P.2d 295 (State v. Prentice) 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.
Opinion
Defendant pled guilty to a charge of racketeering. ORS 166.720. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for 5 years, subject to certain conditions, among which was that he pay restitution. Subsequently, as a result of a probation violation, probation was extended for another year. Two months before probation was to expire, the court, evidently concerned that the expiration would leave a large amount of the restitution unpaid, entered a judgment purporting to “convert” the unpaid restitution to a compensatory fine.
The state concedes that there is no authority that authorizes a court to convert the outstanding balance of unpaid restitution to a compensatory fine at the expiration of probation. We accept the concession.
Judgment for compensatory fine vacated; otherwise affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
825 P.2d 295, 111 Or. App. 639, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-prentice-orctapp-1992.