State v. Simms

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Simms

797 P.2d 1080, 103 Or. App. 640, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1313

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 10, 1990

DocketC88-09-36506; CA A60375

StatusPublished

This text of 797 P.2d 1080 (State v. Simms) 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. Simms, 797 P.2d 1080, 103 Or. App. 640, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1313 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted with a co-defendant in a 9-count indictment. Only Counts 1 through 6 accused defendant and his co-defendant. The other counts pertained to the co-defendant alone; two of those counts involved the property of Dong Nguyen. Defendant was convicted on Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5; on Count 5, the court imposed a suspended sentence and placed defendant on probation, subject to the condition that he pay restitution for damage to Nguyen’s property.

The state concedes that the trial court erred. Nguyen was not a victim of defendant’s criminal activities, and defendant was not convicted of and did not admit either of the counts that related to Nguyen’s property. Restitution was not authorized. ORS 137.106(1).

Convictions affirmed; restitution as condition of probation stricken.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted with a co-defendant in a 9-count indictment. Only Counts 1 through 6 accused defendant and his co-defendant. The other counts pertained to the co-defendant alone; two of those counts involved the property of Dong Nguyen. Defendant was convicted on Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5; on Count 5, the court imposed a suspended sentence and placed defendant on probation, subject to the condition that he pay restitution for damage to Nguyen’s property.

The state concedes that the trial court erred. Nguyen was not a victim of defendant’s criminal activities, and defendant was not convicted of and did not admit either of the counts that related to Nguyen’s property. Restitution was not authorized. ORS 137.106(1).

Convictions affirmed; restitution as condition of probation stricken.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

797 P.2d 1080, 103 Or. App. 640, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-simms-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack