State v. Lynch

Under Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution, “a victim may not be granted restitution if that would result in a reduction of the criminal defendant’s rights afforded by the federal constitution.” State v. Barrett, 350 Or 390, 255 P3d 472 (2011). Because a defendant relinquishes many important constitutional rights when he elects to resolve his case by plea, it would be “fundamentally unfair to deprive [him] of the benefit of the bargain struck.”

Defendant’s plea bargain set a 90-day limitation on determining his liability for restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it awarded restitution after 90 days. Defendant asserted that the award conflicted with the plain terms of his plea bargain and violated his due process rights. In response, the State argued that the 90-day limitation was ambiguous and that Defendant’s due process right to enforce a plea agreement extended only to enforcement of material terms. A criminal defendant is entitled to a remedy where the state seeks an award of restitution in a manner that conflicts with the terms of a plea agreement. State v. Kendrick, 285 Or App 328, 395 P3d 969 (2017). The Court found that the 90-day limitation was not “susceptible to characterization as an insubstantial or technical part of the bargain” and Defendant had “an enforceable right in the benefit of that bargain.”  Thus, the Court held that “the trial court erred in declining to enforce [D]efendant’s plea agreement and in entering the untimely award of restitution.” Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.