State v. King

Under ORS 138.222(5)(a), where a trial court has amended a judgment adding a restitution award after the 90-day period allowed, the proper disposition of the case on appeal is not reversal but remand for resentencing if the trial court expressed a desire to have the defendant compensate the victim and the court could impose a compensatory fine that would be paid to the victim.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s restitution award under ORS 137.106(1)(b) (2012), arguing the court erred in awarding restitution in an amended judgment after the 90-day period for determining the amount of restitution without finding “good cause” and, alternatively, the record was insufficient to support a “good cause” finding. Approximately four months after Defendant pleaded guilty to three felony offenses the court held a restitution hearing. Defendant contended it was too late for the State to request restitution; the State argued that, although the statutory period had passed, it was up to the court whether it would allow an extension. The court amended the judgment by adding a restitution award without addressing Defendant’s argument regarding good cause. On appeal, the parties agree the court was required to issue a supplemental judgment for restitution within 90 days of the entry of the original judgment unless good cause existed for delay. The parties disagreed regarding the disposition of the case; Defendant argued the Court should reverse the restitution judgment, while the State argued remand for resentencing was appropriate. The Court held, under ORS 138.222(5)(a), remand for resentencing is required where restitution is no longer an option but the court has expressed a desire to have the defendant compensate the victim and the court could impose a compensatory fine that would be paid to the victim. Award of restitution reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.