State v. Thompson
257 Or. App. 336
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of failing to perform the duties of a driver; the judgment ordered restitution to the City of Monmouth for stop-sign repair ($162.60).
- A separate light-pole repair cost ($1,694.37) was not included in the initial restitution due to the prosecutor's late presentation of that figure at sentencing.
- Months later, the City of Monmouth filed a claim under Oregon crime-victims rights provisions alleging a constitutional violation for the failure to order prompt restitution for the light-pole damages.
- The trial court held a hearing and issued an amended judgment ordering $1,856.97 in restitution for the light-pole damage.
- Defendant appealed arguing three main points: (i) the trial court lacked authority under Article I, section 42 to consider the claim in light of mandamus remedies, (ii) the claim was untimely under ORS 147.515, and (iii) the amended judgment exceeded the 90-day limit in ORS 137.106 (2011).
- The court affirmed, concluding the trial court had authority to remedy the victim-rights violation and that the statutory timing did not bar the amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under Article I §42 | City contends the trial court could hear the claim under §42(3)(b) and not require mandamus, since the legislature authorized court proceedings under ORS 147.515. | Defendant argues §42(3)(b) requires mandamus or lacks trial-court jurisdiction over untimely or non-pending claims. | Trial court had authority; ORS 147.515 provides a trial-court remedy; §42 not divesting jurisdiction. |
| Timeliness under ORS 147.515 | City filed within an applicable period as provided by law, not necessarily promptly after discovery. | Timeliness was not met under ORS 147.515(1) and would be jurisdictional. | Timeliness is not a jurisdictional bar; the statute does not divest jurisdiction for untimely claims. |
| Authority to amend under ORS 137.106 (2011) | Amendment to include full damages within 90 days was permissible under the statute following Barrett. | Amended restitution beyond 90 days exceeded statutory limits. | Court could impose additional restitution; ORS 137.106 does not bar remedy to address rights violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barrett, 350 Or 390, 255 P.3d 472 (2011) (victim-rights remedy permits resentence to remedy violation)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993) (serve as framework for statutes interpretation in victims’ rights context)
- Gaines, 346 Or 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) (interpretation of legislative intent and statutory context clarified)
- State v. Barboe, 253 Or App 367, 290 P.3d 833 (2012) (timeliness issues in appeals not waived when unpreserved)
- State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 800 P.2d 259 (1990) (plain error review prerequisite in factual contexts)