State v. Condon
246 Or. App. 403
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Timothy J. Cond on, Jr. was convicted of attempted first-degree assault with a firearm and facing $333,149.60 in restitution.
- Judgment of conviction entered April 9, 2009; restitution determination occurred September 21, 2009, beyond the 90-day deadline in ORS 137.106(1)(b).
- Trial court found good cause to extend the deadline due to difficulties gathering victim's medical documentation.
- Victim’s mother spent extensive time collecting bills; medical records were misplaced and recovered after delays.
- Prosecutor was not diligent within the 90-day period; defendant argued the delay resulted from prosecutorial neglect, akin to Biscotti and Murrell.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, distinguishing Biscotti/Murrell and concluding there was good cause to extend restitution determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there good cause to determine restitution beyond 90 days? | State contends severity of injuries and extensive documentation justify extension. | Condon argues no good cause; delay resembles prosecutorial neglect as in Biscotti. | Yes; good cause found to extend beyond 90 days. |
| Did the trial court properly rely on victim's mother’s efforts to show good cause? | State emphasizes diligent but late collection of extensive medical bills. | Condon argues circumstances mirror Biscotti/Murrell where state neglected. | Yes; trial court’s reasoning acceptable; mother’s efforts support good cause. |
| Does Biscotti control whether good cause exists when the delay is caused by victim’s documentation issues? | State argues distinction; not purely prosecutorial neglect. | Condon asserts Biscotti dictates no good cause if caused by neglect. | No; the record shows good cause despite similarities to Biscotti. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Biscotti, 219 Or. App. 296 (2008) (delay due to prosecutorial neglect; lack of good cause)
- State v. Murrell, 242 Or. App. 178 (2011) (prosecutor fell through the cracks; delay not excused by neglect)
- State v. Landreth, 246 Or. App. 376 (2011) (delay due to circumstances; good cause when appropriate)
- State v. Unis, 246 Or. App. 397 (2011) (legislative purpose: timely recovery for victims)