Legal Opinion

State v. Martinez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 2, 2011No. 08121860C1; A143343PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROSENBLUM, S. J.

Defendant, who was convicted of second-degree assault after a guilty plea, argues that the trial court erred in imposing $1,589.90 in restitution on the ground that the restitution determination was not made until over six months after the judgment of conviction was entered. In particular, defendant argues that the court erred in finding that there was “good cause” to enter the order beyond the 90-day time-line established by ORS 137.106(l)(b). As explained below, we agree with the trial court that there was good cause to enter the delayed restitution order in this case.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ArwoodCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  2. State v. BiscottiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. State v. MurrellCourt 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