State v. Unis
246 Or. App. 397
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant was convicted of first-degree theft and attempted first-degree theft in Oregon and restitution was ordered under ORS 137.106.
- Initial restitution judgment awarded $851.15 on February 3, 2009 after a January 2009 state request.
- Defense moved for a restitution hearing; hearing was scheduled for April 13, 2009, then postponed to May 11, 2009 and further delayed at defense requests.
- In August 2009, the state sought a larger amount; defendant initially acknowledged $851.15 was proper but later contested the final amount.
- Hearing held on August 31, 2009 determined restitution should be $2,570.13, with the court citing the restitution specialist’s illness as good cause for delay.
- Appellant argues the 90-day limit in ORS 137.106(1)(b) and lack of prosecutorial neglect require reversal; the court affirms, distinguishing Biscotti and Murrell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there good cause to extend restitution beyond 90 days? | Unclear delays attributed to illness; timely pursuit of proper amount remains essential. | Illness of restitution specialist does not constitute good cause; delay resulting from neglect should not be excused. | Yes; there was good cause to extend beyond 90 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Biscotti, 219 Or.App. 296 (2008) (good cause analysis for restitution timing; illness not negligent delay; amended ORS 137.106 provisions)
- State v. Murrell, 242 Or.App. 178 (2011) (prosecutor left office; no good cause for restitution delay)