State v. Rieker

“…ORS 137.106 did not prevent the court from imposing restitution [beyond the 90-day deadline] in order to provide the victim a remedy by due course of law, after it was discovered that her constitutional right to restitution was violated.” State v. Wagoner, 257 Or App 749, 395 P3d 528 (2013).

Defendant appealed an order to pay $2,000 of restitution after he pled guilty to DUII. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court did not have authority to order him to pay restitution beyond the 90-day statutory deadline because the court lacked “good cause” under ORS 137.106(1)(a). In response, the State argued that it did not need “good cause” because the court had independent constitutional authority to provide a remedy for a violation of the victim’s right to prompt restitution. “…ORS 137.106 does not prevent the court from imposing restitution [beyond the 90-day deadline] in order to provide the victim a remedy by due course of law, after it [is] discovered that [their] constitutional right to restitution was violated.” State v. Wagoner, 257 Or App 607, 611, 307 P3d 528 (2013). The Court held that the trial court did not err in declining to consider “good cause” because of the trial court’s constitutional authority to remedy the violation and impose the restitution beyond the 90-day statutory deadline. Affirmed.