From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ross

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 28, 1991
108 Or. App. 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

89-2767 CR; CA A64448

Submitted March 1, 1991

Affirmed August 28, 1991

Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County.

Donald A.W. Piper, Judge.

Phil Studenberg, Klamath Falls, filed the brief for appellant.

Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and Deits, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty to theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. He challenges the part of his sentence relating to the amount of restitution imposed and the joint and several nature of his liability for that amount. The state concedes that the record provides insufficient data from which to determine the proper amount of restitution, but it argues that joint and several liability is proper.

We affirm the decision without deciding either issue. Defendant pled guilty. His right to appeal is provided by ORS 138.050, which limits the issues that we may review to whether the disposition exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is cruel and unusual. There is no statutory limit on the amount of restitution that may be imposed, and defendant does not argue that his sentence is cruel and unusual. We are without authority to review the issues that defendant raises. State v. King, 107 Or. App. 249, 810 P.2d 413 (1991).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Ross

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 28, 1991
108 Or. App. 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

State v. Ross

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. PAUL ROSS, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 28, 1991

Citations

108 Or. App. 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)
815 P.2d 719

Citing Cases

State v. Anderson

Therefore, we held that we could not review the defendant's assignment of error under the current ORS…