State v. Kirkland
268 Or. App. 420
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree theft (theft by receiving) under ORS 164.055 after a theft of jewelry.
- The restitution order required payment of $1,405 to the victim, representing damages for jewelry reportedly missing.
- The victim’s insurer had already paid $1,000 for the loss.
- The indictment alleged theft by selling the jewelry, not theft by taking a specific item; defendant did not limit his plea to particular items.
- At restitution, Deputy Lee testified defendant admitted taking the jewelry and selling it to others to obtain money for counseling, while acknowledging memory gaps.
- The trial court ordered restitution for all missing jewelry based on defendant’s admissions and the theory of theft by selling, not limited to the opal necklace.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a guilty plea supports restitution for all victim damages | State: plea to theft by selling supports aggregate damages. | Garrett: admission concerns only specific item(s); not all missing jewelry. | Yes; plea and admissions support restitution for all missing jewelry. |
| Whether 'criminal activities' for restitution can include offenses beyond the specific item charged | State: admissions and plea allow broader scope tied to the crime charged. | Garrett: only the item(s) charged/admitted can be used for damages. | Yes; trial court may consider related criminal activities within the plea as basis for damages. |
| Preservation of insurer-damages argument | State: insurer damages are within the restitution scope. | Garrett: insurer damages were not properly preserved for appeal. | Not addressed; issue not preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172 (Or 1981) (establishes prerequisites for restitution and damages causation)
- State v. Hart, 299 Or 128 (Or 1985) (courts may conduct sentencing-era fact-finding for damages)
- State v. Sigman, 141 Or App 479 (Or App 1996) (trial court may determine causal relation with broader evidence)
- State v. Thorpe, 217 Or App 301 (Or App 2007) (limits on admitting uncaptured or non-admitted offenses in restitution)
- State v. Dorsey, 259 Or App 441 (Or App 2013) (restitution cannot be based on uncharged or unadmitted periods)
- State v. Howett, 184 Or App 352 (Or App 2002) (no extra restitution for uncharged time periods)
- State v. Doty, 60 Or App 297 (Or App 1982) (civil-liability framework for damages arising from criminal activity)
- State v. Ramos, 267 Or App 164 (Or App 2014) (amendment to economic damages broadens restitution scope)
- State v. Seggerman, 167 Or App 140 (Or App 2000) (cannot award restitution for damages not tied to convicted/admitted crimes)