Legal Opinion

State v. Huyck

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 29, 1980No. 10-80-02559, CA 18085PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, J. PRO TEMPORE

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of theft in the first degree. She was sentenced to pay restitution in the amount of $2,975 and costs in the amount of $150. She claims the trial court erroneously ordered her to pay these amounts because it failed to take into account her ability to pay them.

In determining whether to order restitution, the trial court must take into account the financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of restitution will impose. ORS 137.106(2)(a). Similarly, the court cannot sentence a defendant to pay costs unless…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fuller v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. State v. DinkelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  3. State v. FullerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  4. State v. KeysCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  2. State v. EdsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. Steffans v. KeeneyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API