STATE v. GREGORY, 149 Or. App. 769 (1997)

945 P.2d 593

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL E. GREGORY, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL E. GREGORY, Appellant.

95-09-7648C; CA A94018 (Control) C96-05-5141; CA A94019 Cases ConsolidatedOregon Court of Appeals.Submitted on record and briefs June 30, 1997
Vacated in part; otherwise affirmed September 10, 1997

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Malheur County, J. Burdette Pratt, Judge.

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Louis R. Miles, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Page 769-a

Before Deits, Chief Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

That portion of the judgment in trial court case no. 95-09-7648C ordering restitution for lost wages to victim’s relatives vacated; otherwise affirmed.

Page 769-b

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]

Page 770

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a minor, ORS 163.575, and sexual abuse in the second degree, ORS 163.425. As a part of his sentence for sexual abuse, he was ordered to pay restitution of $720 to the victim’s mother and two other adult relatives for wages that they lost when they accompanied the victim to defendant’s court appearances. Defendant appeals that portion of the judgment ordering restitution for lost wages.[1]

The state concedes that the trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay restitution to the victim’s relatives for lost wages. We agree that the court lacked authority under ORS 137.103 to impose the restitution for lost wages. State v. Barkley, 315 Or. 420, 846 P.2d 390, cert den 510 U.S. 837 (1993). Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with instructions to enter an amended judgment.

That portion of the judgment in trial court case no. 95-09-7648C ordering restitution for lost wages to victim’s relatives vacated; otherwise affirmed.

[1] Defendant does not challenge any part of the judgment in trial court case no. C96-05-5141 (endangering the welfare of a minor).

Page 771

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 945 P.2d 593

Recent Posts

STATE v. MCCARTHY, 501 P.3d 478 (2021)

501 P.3d 478 (2021)369 Or. 129 STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Charles Steven…

9 months ago

STATE EX REL. S.M. v. A.S., 196 P.3d 26 (2008)

044230S0; A134887. 196 P.3d 26 (2008) 223 Or. App. 421 STATE of Oregon ex rel.…

7 years ago

STATE v. McNALLY, 361 Or. 314 (2017)

April 20, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Respondent…

9 years ago

STATE v. HAUGEN, 361 Or. 284 (2017)

March 30, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON,…

9 years ago

IN THE MATTER OF BROWN, 361 Or. 241 (2017)

361 Or. 241 In the Matter of the Compensation of Royce L. Brown, Sr., Claimant.…

9 years ago

IN RE ROLLER, 361 Or 234 (2017)

234                                  March 9, 2017                              No. 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE…

9 years ago