284 P.3d 1139
Or.2012Background
- Mullins charged December 2008 with second- and third-degree assault; jury found him guilty February 2009; restitution to be determined under ORS 137.106(1)(b).
- On July 9, 2009, the state moved for an amended judgment and restitution, and the trial court, without a hearing, signed a Judgment for Restitution and entered a supplemental judgment awarding $2,603.70.
- Neither Mullins nor his trial/appellate counsel received notice of entry of the supplemental judgment at that time; by November 20, 2009 trial counsel had notice, but appellate counsel did not.
- On March 23, 2010, appellate counsel filed an amended notice of appeal from the supplemental judgment.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed Mullins’ appeal from the supplemental judgment for lack of jurisdiction; this court affirms the Court of Appeals’ jurisdictional ruling and the underlying judgment of conviction and sentence and the supplemental restitution judgment.
- The central issue is whether ORS 138.071(4)’s 30-day clock begins when the defendant receives actual notice of the supplemental judgment, and whether notice to trial counsel suffices when the defendant is represented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice to trial counsel suffices to trigger ORS 138.071(4) | Mullins argues only personal or appellate notice should trigger the clock. | State argues notice to any agent of the defendant (trial or appellate counsel) suffices. | Yes; trial counsel's notice suffices to trigger the 30-day period. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation and notice concepts in ORS 138.071(4))
- State v. Fowler, 350 Or 133 (2011) (earlier precedent on supplemental judgments and notice timing)
- ETU, Inc. v. Environmental Quality Commission, 343 Or 57 (2007) (agency-notice and representation concepts applied to notice to counsel)
- Lehman v. Knott, 100 Or 240 (1920) (attorney-client relationship as principal-agent)
- Granewich v. Harding, 329 Or 47 (1999) (agency principles in attorney-client representation)
- Goldsborough v. Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd., 314 Or 336 (1992) (notice and representation context in statutory interpretation)