State v. Carson
238 Or. App. 188
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant indicted on 12 counts for embezzlement from employer over Aug 2004–Nov 2006; plea to five counts (three first-degree theft, one computer crime, one aggravated theft) under a plea agreement.
- Plea allowed restitution hearings and provided that the state may present evidence relevant to the charging instrument beyond the counts defendant pleaded guilty to.
- At restitution hearing, the state sought $80,411.88 for damages spanning Aug 2004–Nov 13, 2006, including $7,952.04 during a mid-2005 gap period.
- Trial court awarded full requested restitution despite defendant’s objection to amounts within the gap period, relying on the plea agreement’s breadth to authorize such an award.
- There is a contemporaneous prosecutor statement at the change-of-plea indicating the entire indictment time span is open for proof, suggesting the court could consider uncharged conduct; defense did not object.
- Issue turns on whether the plea agreement authorizes restitution for uncharged conduct within the indictment’s entire timespan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea allows restitution for uncharged conduct within the indictment span. | State: conduct within entire indictment span is ‘relevant to’ the indictment. | Carson: only charged/admitted conduct within the indictment is relevant. | Yes; implied authority to include uncharged conduct within the span. |
| Whether contract interpretation and extrinsic evidence resolve ambiguity in the plea terms. | State: contemporaneous statements show mutual intent broad enough to cover uncharged conduct. | Carson: ambiguity should be construed against the state; no clear waiver. | Contemporaneous statements support broad scope; contract interpretation applied; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miller, 116 Or.App. 432 (1992) (waiver of restitution rights through plea terms recognized)
- State v. McDonnell, 310 Or. 98 (1990) (contract principles apply to plea agreements)
- State v. Snider, 296 Or. 168 (1983) (contract interpretation principles apply to plea agreements)
- State v. Ivie, 213 Or. App. 198 (2007) (extrinsic evidence to resolve contract ambiguity permissible)
- State v. Chavez, 211 Or.App. 142 (2007) (plea agreements may alter restitution framework)
- State v. Howett, 184 Or. App. 352 (2002) (restitution may be imposed for damages recoverable in civil action related to crime)
- State v. Stephens, 183 Or.App. 392 (2002) (three prerequisites to restitution: criminal activity, economic damages, causal link)