State v. Ross

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Ross

815 P.2d 719, 108 Or. App. 560, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1260

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 28, 1991

Docket89-2767 CR; CA A64448

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 815 P.2d 719 (State v. Ross) 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. Ross, 815 P.2d 719, 108 Or. App. 560, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1260 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty to theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. He challenges the part of his sentence relating to the amount of restitution imposed and the joint and several nature of his liability for that amount. The state concedes that the record provides insufficient data from which to determine the proper amount of restitution, but it argues that joint and several liability is proper.

We affirm the decision without deciding either issue. Defendant pled guilty. His right to appeal is provided by ORS 138.050, which limits the issues that we may review to whether the disposition exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is cruel and unusual. There is no statutory limit on the amount of restitution that may be imposed, and defendant does not argue that his sentence is cruel and unusual. We are without authority to review the issues that defendant raises. State v. King, 107 Or App 249, 810 P2d 413 (1991).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty to theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. He challenges the part of his sentence relating to the amount of restitution imposed and the joint and several nature of his liability for that amount. The state concedes that the record provides insufficient data from which to determine the proper amount of restitution, but it argues that joint and several liability is proper.

We affirm the decision without deciding either issue. Defendant pled guilty. His right to appeal is provided by ORS 138.050, which limits the issues that we may review to whether the disposition exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is cruel and unusual. There is no statutory limit on the amount of restitution that may be imposed, and defendant does not argue that his sentence is cruel and unusual. We are without authority to review the issues that defendant raises. State v. King, 107 Or App 249, 810 P2d 413 (1991).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 P.2d 719, 108 Or. App. 560, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ross-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack