State v. Moore

After an amendment made in 2013, ORS 137.106 now “does not require the court to determine the amount of restitution or enter a restitution judgment within any specific time.” State v. Taylor, 300 Or App 626, 629-30, 455 P3d 609 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 493 (2020). Moreover, ORS 137.106(1)(a) allows the time for the prosecutor’s presentation of restitution information to be extended for “good cause.”

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree criminal mischief and stipulated to liability for restitution. The trial court held a restitution hearing 123 days after the judgment of conviction was entered. Defendant objected to the imposition of any restitution because the hearing occurred beyond the 90-day deadline required by ORS 137.106(1)(a), but the trial court found good cause to extend the deadline because the delay was not attributable to the State. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding “good cause” for the delayed restitution hearing. Defendant argued that “the trial court’s negligence is attributable to the State and, alternatively, that the trial court’s negligence is not good cause.” In response, the State argued that a recent amendment to ORS 137.106 and recent “good cause” decisions “compel the conclusion that a good-cause finding focuses on the actions of the prosecutor, rather than the actions of the trial court.” The State further argued that “the trial court’s inattentiveness constituted good cause to schedule a restitution hearing beyond the 90-day deadline.” The Court explained that “there may be good cause where circumstances out of the prosecutor’s control prevent a hearing from taking place.” Because “the trial court’s act of scheduling the hearing outside of the 90-day deadline was outside of the prosecutor’s control,” the Court found that “the trial court did not err in finding good cause to extend the deadline for the prosecutor to make a presentation on restitution.” Affirmed.