State v. Tallent

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Tallent

328 P.3d 838, 263 Or. App. 711, 2014 WL 2781569, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 811

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 18, 2014

Docket1200404CR; A152970

StatusPublished

This text of 328 P.3d 838 (State v. Tallent) 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. Tallent, 328 P.3d 838, 263 Or. App. 711, 2014 WL 2781569, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 811 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of first-degree theft. ORS 164.055. As part of the sentence, the court imposed restitution in the amount of $959. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing part of the restitution — $250 related to damage to a victim’s vehicle— in the absence of a causal relationship between defendant’s criminal conduct and the economic loss in question. The state concedes that, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in imposing the restitution at issue. We agree and accept the concession. See State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 181, 637 P2d 602 (1981) (for imposition of restitution to be proper, a defendant’s criminal activity must be the cause of pecuniary damage). Accordingly, the case must be remanded for resentencing.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of first-degree theft. ORS 164.055. As part of the sentence, the court imposed restitution in the amount of $959. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing part of the restitution — $250 related to damage to a victim’s vehicle— in the absence of a causal relationship between defendant’s criminal conduct and the economic loss in question. The state concedes that, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in imposing the restitution at issue. We agree and accept the concession. See State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 181, 637 P2d 602 (1981) (for imposition of restitution to be proper, a defendant’s criminal activity must be the cause of pecuniary damage). Accordingly, the case must be remanded for resentencing.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 P.3d 838, 263 Or. App. 711, 2014 WL 2781569, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tallent-orctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack