State v. Landreth, 246 Or. App. 376

Judgment of conviction entered on April 20, 2009.
ORS 137.106(1)(b) requires restitution determination within 90 days unless there is good cause to extend.
At sentencing, parties and court discussed restitution hearing would be set within 90 days.
On July 8, 2009, prosecutor filed a motion for amended judgment imposing restitution based on damages testified by victim.
Hearing on the motion occurred July 27 and was continued to August for scheduling; amended judgment entered after the hearing.
Restitution hearing occurred on the 98th day; defendant argued against restitution due to timing; trial court found good cause to extend beyond 90 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to consider restitution after 90 days	State: statute permits extension for good cause; no separate pre-motion requirement.	Landreth: no authority to decide restitution after 90 days without prior good-cause determination.	Court had authority; good cause provided to extend.
Existence of good cause to extend beyond 90 days	Victim's illness and treatment constituted good cause; motion filed within 90 days.	No good cause; delay improper or unreasonable.	There was good cause to determine restitution past the 90-day limit.
Prosecutorial inattentiveness as good cause	Not asserted as lack of good cause; timely action given victim's illness.	Prosecutorial neglect/inattention cannot supply good cause.	Record shows motion filed within the period for reasons tied to victim's health; inattentiveness not the basis; good cause supported.

State v. Biscotti, 219 Or. App. 296 (2008) (good cause for extending 90-day restitution timeline analyzed)
State v. Murrell, 242 Or. App. 178 (2011) (prosecutorial inattentiveness not automatically good cause)