State v. Snyder

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Snyder

186 P.3d 324, 220 Or. App. 440, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 797

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 11, 2008

DocketF13304, M13322 A133136 (Control), A133137

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 186 P.3d 324 (State v. Snyder) 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. Snyder, 186 P.3d 324, 220 Or. App. 440, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 797 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*441 PER CURIAM

In these consolidated cases, defendant entered conditional guilty pleas to three counts of second-degree theft and a single count of first-degree burglary. On appeal, he challenges only the trial court’s imposition of compensatory fines payable to each of the three named victims, contending that the record does not support findings that they suffered economic damages as required by ORS 137.101 and ORS 137.103. The state concedes the error and, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the state and remand for resentencing.

At sentencing on defendant’s convictions, the parties agreed that all the stolen property was recovered by police and returned to the victims. Nonetheless, the trial court ordered compensatory fines on the ground that the victims suffered “psychological damage” from having had their homes invaded. Although we agree that such damage may have resulted from the crimes committed in this case, the statutes require that economic damages be suffered before compensatory fines may be imposed. See State v. Donahue, 165 Or App 143, 145, 995 P2d 1202 (2000) (“[A] compensatory fine may be awarded only if the trial court finds that the victim has suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the defendant’s criminal activities.”). As the state concedes, “[g]iven the record in this case, the prerequisites to imposition of a compensatory fine set forth in [Donahue] are not met as the pecuniary damage component is unsatisfied.”

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*441 PER CURIAM

In these consolidated cases, defendant entered conditional guilty pleas to three counts of second-degree theft and a single count of first-degree burglary. On appeal, he challenges only the trial court’s imposition of compensatory fines payable to each of the three named victims, contending that the record does not support findings that they suffered economic damages as required by ORS 137.101 and ORS 137.103. The state concedes the error and, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the state and remand for resentencing.

At sentencing on defendant’s convictions, the parties agreed that all the stolen property was recovered by police and returned to the victims. Nonetheless, the trial court ordered compensatory fines on the ground that the victims suffered “psychological damage” from having had their homes invaded. Although we agree that such damage may have resulted from the crimes committed in this case, the statutes require that economic damages be suffered before compensatory fines may be imposed. See State v. Donahue, 165 Or App 143, 145, 995 P2d 1202 (2000) (“[A] compensatory fine may be awarded only if the trial court finds that the victim has suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the defendant’s criminal activities.”). As the state concedes, “[g]iven the record in this case, the prerequisites to imposition of a compensatory fine set forth in [Donahue] are not met as the pecuniary damage component is unsatisfied.”

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 P.3d 324, 220 Or. App. 440, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-snyder-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack