State v. Dixon

• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
• Date Filed: 01-29-2025
• Case #: A179644
• Judge(s)/Court Below: Kamins, J. for the Court; Tookey, P.J.; & DeVore, S.J.
• Full Text Opinion

“Whether an [erroneous sentence] is an ‘error that requires resentencing’ depends on whether ‘there remain options that the trial court permissibly could adopt on resentencing.’” State v. Edson, 329 Or 127, 139, 985 P2d 1253 (1999).

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment which erroneously imposed restitution for medical expenses, without evidentiary support. As the judgment would be reversed, the question presented was whether the case should be remanded for resentencing.

ORS 138.257(4)(a)(B) compels remand for errors “requir[ing] resentencing.” If the trial court retains options as to permissible sentences which could be imposed on resentencing, the error requires resentencing. Cf. State v. Edson, 329 Or 127, 139, 985 P2d 1253 (1997). The Court of Appeals was unpersuaded that the trial court lacked “permissible sentencing options” on remand and returned that matter to the sentencing court for determination.

“Supplemental judgment reversed and remanded.”

Share Subscribe