Legal Opinion

State v. McLaughlin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 3, 2011No. 080733272; A142664PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our disposition in this case, which stated: “Judgment awarding restitution vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.” State v. McLaughlin, 243 Or App 214, 221, 258 P3d 1241 (2011). Defendant requests that we delete the phrase “and remanded for resentencing.” We allow the petition and modify the disposition.

We draw a distinction between cases overturning the restitution judgment outright and those remanding for resentencing based on whether the trial court still retains authority to impose restitution. State v. Tippetts, 239 Or App…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. BiscottiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  2. State v. TippettsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  3. State v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. State v. CanadyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. BeckhamCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  2. State v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. State v. YocumCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. State v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  5. State v. WagonerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API