State v. McLaughlin, 269 P.3d 104

McLaughlin was convicted of first-degree theft and faced restitution issues at sentencing.
The initial State v. McLaughlin opinion vacated the supplemental restitution judgment due to insufficient notice of restitution nature and amount, and remanded for resentencing.
McLaughlin filed a petition for reconsideration arguing authorities to impose restitution no longer existed; the court disagreed, distinguishing restitution overruling remand vs resentencing.
The court changed disposition on reconsideration to a judgment awarding restitution, based on the lack of timely restitution evidence.
The State sought leave to file a late response; the court allowed it and then urged remand for resentencing under statutory authority.
Under ORS 138.222(5)(a), remand for resentencing is required when the sentencing court committed an error that requires resentencing, potentially allowing a compensatory fine under ORS 137.101.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 138.222(5)(a) requires remand for resentencing.	State: remand is required for resentencing.	McLaughlin: prior holdings negate further restitution authority; remand unnecessary.	Remand required for resentencing.
Whether compensatory fines can be considered on remand.	State: compensatory fines may be imposed to compensate victims.	McLaughlin: issues beyond restitution should be analyzed; no extra fines implied.	Compensatory fines may be considered on remand under ORS 137.101.

State v. Williams, 148 Or.App. 93 (1997) (recognizes remand considerations when restitution cannot be re-imposed)
State v. Biscotti, 219 Or.App. 296 (2008) (addressed restitution restitution and remand distinctions)
State v. Canady/Calhoun, 225 Or.App. 299 (2009) (discussed authorities to remand or adjust sentencing related to restitution)
State v. Tippetts, 239 Or.App. 429 (2010) (addressed timing and authority for restitution-related remands)