State v. Ross

815 P.2d 719, 108 Or. App. 560, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1260
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided August 28, 1991·No. 89-2767 CR; CA A64448·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

815 P.2d 719 (State v. Ross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Anderson
833 P.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)