From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Senner

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 29, 1981
630 P.2d 381 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. 77-11-107, CA 18949

Argued and submitted May 13, 1981

Reversed and remanded for resentencing June 29, 1981

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County.

Dale Jacobs, Judge.

Thomas J. Crabtree, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Christine L. Dickey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and William F. Gary, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Young, Judges.


GILLETTE, P. J.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.



This is a criminal case in which defendant was originally convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree and placed on probation. The present appeal arises out of the trial court's subsequent order continuing probation but requiring, inter alia, that defendant make restitution to the victim of a crime which the trial court found that defendant had committed while on probation. Defendant appeals, challenging the restitution condition of his continued probation. He has not been convicted of the offense; he denies committing it. We remand for resentencing.

The restitution order challenged here directs that defendant pay over $3,000 to the insurance company of a man injured in a brawl in which defendant and his brother were involved. Defendant contends, first, that it was error to require him to make restitution to an insurance company. Defendant is mistaken. See State v. Lewis, 49 Or. App. 447, 619 P.2d 684 (1980).

He next contends that he may not be required to make restitution where he has neither been convicted of nor admitted to the offense for which the restitution is imposed. Defendant is correct. State v. Armstrong, 44 Or. App. 219, 605 P.2d 736, rev den (1980).

The state argues that this issue is not a matter which can be raised on direct appeal. We have consistently considered such issues on direct appeal. See, e.g., State v. Eastman, 51 Or. App. 723, 626 P.2d 956 (1981); State v. Dillon, 51 Or. App. 729, 626 P.2d 959 (1981). We decline to alter that policy now.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

The defendant's other assignment of error does not require discussion.



Summaries of

State v. Senner

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 29, 1981
630 P.2d 381 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

State v. Senner

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MARK CLAYTON SENNER, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 29, 1981

Citations

630 P.2d 381 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
630 P.2d 381