State v. Senner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Senner

630 P.2d 381, 52 Or. App. 971, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2869

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 29, 1981

DocketNo. 77-11-107, CA 18949

StatusPublished

This text of 630 P.2d 381 (State v. Senner) 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. Senner, 630 P.2d 381, 52 Or. App. 971, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2869 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

GILLETTE, P. J.

This is a criminal case in which defendant was originally convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree and placed on probation. The present appeal arises out of the trial court’s subsequent order continuing probation but requiring, inter alia, that defendant make restitution to the victim of a crime which the trial court found that defendant had committed while on probation. Defendant appeals, challenging the restitution condition of his continued probation. He has not been convicted of the offense; he denies committing it. We remand for resentencing. '

The restitution order challenged here directs that defendant pay over $3,000 to the insurance company of a man injured in a brawl in which defendant and his brother were involved. Defendant contends, first, that it was error to require him to make restitution to an insurance company. Defendant is mistaken. See State v. Lewis, 49 Or App 447, 619 P2d 684 (1980).

He next contends that he may not be required to make restitution where he has neither been convicted of nor admitted to the offense for which the restitution is imposed. Defendant is correct. State v. Armstrong, 44 Or App 219, 605 P2d 736, rev den (1980).

The state argues that this issue is not a matter which can be raised on direct appeal. We have consistently considered such issues on direct appeal. See, e.g., State v. Eastman, 51 Or App 723, 626 P2d 956 (1981); State v. Dillon, 51 Or App 729, 626 P2d 959 (1981). We decline to alter that policy now.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.¹

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

GILLETTE, P. J.

This is a criminal case in which defendant was originally convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree and placed on probation. The present appeal arises out of the trial court’s subsequent order continuing probation but requiring, inter alia, that defendant make restitution to the victim of a crime which the trial court found that defendant had committed while on probation. Defendant appeals, challenging the restitution condition of his continued probation. He has not been convicted of the offense; he denies committing it. We remand for resentencing. '

The restitution order challenged here directs that defendant pay over $3,000 to the insurance company of a man injured in a brawl in which defendant and his brother were involved. Defendant contends, first, that it was error to require him to make restitution to an insurance company. Defendant is mistaken. See State v. Lewis, 49 Or App 447, 619 P2d 684 (1980).

He next contends that he may not be required to make restitution where he has neither been convicted of nor admitted to the offense for which the restitution is imposed. Defendant is correct. State v. Armstrong, 44 Or App 219, 605 P2d 736, rev den (1980).

The state argues that this issue is not a matter which can be raised on direct appeal. We have consistently considered such issues on direct appeal. See, e.g., State v. Eastman, 51 Or App 723, 626 P2d 956 (1981); State v. Dillon, 51 Or App 729, 626 P2d 959 (1981). We decline to alter that policy now.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

630 P.2d 381, 52 Or. App. 971, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-senner-orctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack