State v. Sprang
This text of 904 P.2d 1092 (State v. Sprang) 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.
Opinion
Defendant, a building contractor, was convicted on three counts of aggravated theft in the first degree, ORS 164.057, for misappropriating money he had received to perform work on the residences of three victims. As part of his sentence, the trial court ordered that he make restitution to the victims. ORS 137.106. Defendant assigns error to that ruling, claiming that a preconviction discharge in bankruptcy of his civil debt to the victims bars the restitution order.
In State v. Davis, 116 Or App 607, 610, 843 P2d 460 (1992), we applied Kelly v. Robinson, 479 US 36, 50, 107 S Ct 353, 93 L Ed 2d 216 (1986), to hold that a chapter 7 discharge in bankruptcy does not discharge the obligation to make restitution that is imposed as part of a criminal sentence.1 It is not relevant whether the discharge in bankruptcy occurred after the restitution order, as in Kelly, or before the restitution order, as in Davis. See State v. Moriarty, 87 Or App 465, 470, 742 P2d 704, rev den 304 Or 547 (1987) (statute does not require that civil damages be recoverable at the time restitution is imposed).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
904 P.2d 1092, 137 Or. App. 418, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 1473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sprang-orctapp-1995.