State v. Aguilar-Ramos

Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), inattentiveness to the passage of time on the part of a prosecutor does not constitute good cause to impose restitution beyond the 90-day deadline. State v. Martinez, 246 Or. App. 383, 387, rev den, 351 Or. 507 (2011).

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment ordering him to pay $2,663 in restitution damages.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that there was “good cause” to impose restitution beyond the 90-day timeline established by ORS 137.106(1)(a).  On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it found “good cause” for permitting the state to seek restitution 203 days after entry of the judgment. Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), inattentiveness to the passage of time on the part of a prosecutor does not constitute good cause to impose restitution beyond the 90-day timeline.  State v. Martinez, 246 Or. App. 383, 387, rev den, 351 Or. 507 (2011). The Court of Appeals held that there was no “good cause” to impose restitution beyond the 90-day statutory deadline because the action and inactions of the prosecutor caused the delay in holding the restitution hearing.  Accordingly, the Court held the trial court erred in imposing restitution 203 days after entry of the judgment.  Reversed.