Legal Opinion

State v. Condon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 2, 2011No. 081034383; A143750PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROSENBLUM, S. J.

Defendant, who was convicted of attempted first-degree assault with a firearm, argues that the trial court erred in imposing $333,149.60 in restitution. The judgment of conviction was entered on April 9, 2009, but restitution was not determined until September 21,2009. The trial court concluded that there was “good cause” to determine restitution beyond the 90-day timeline established by ORS 137.106(l)(b). As explained below, we conclude that the trial court properly concluded that there was good cause for entering a restitution judgment beyond the 90-day deadline.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. BiscottiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  2. State v. MurrellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. State v. LandrethCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. State v. UnisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. Aguilar-RamosCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  2. State v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  3. State v. HalfmoonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  4. State v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API