Legal Opinion

State v. Carpenter

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 2, 1990No. C88-03-31401; CA A50988PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

Defendant appeals his convictions for assault in the first degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. ORS 163.185; ORS 164.135. He assigns error to the court’s imposition of restitution as part of his sentence. ORS 161.675(1). 1 We affirm.

The sentence requires that defendant pay restitution “in an amount not to exceed $40,000, said restitution to be paid * * * at a payment rate and schedule to be determined by his parole officer * * Defendant argues that the trial court lacked authority to delegate the setting of a specific restitution payment schedule to the Board of Parole. See State…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. MontezOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. HickmannOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  3. State v. StalheimOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State v. BraughtonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  5. State v. KizerOregon Supreme Court · 1989

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. GruverCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. State v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  3. State v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  4. State v. GainesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. State v. LunskiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API