Oregon Appellate Court, May 15, 2019
by: Rankin Johnson • May 17, 2019 • no comments
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
RESTITUTION - Restitution disputes following plea agreement
Defendant's plea agreement did not prevent him from challenging the factual or legal basis for restitution award. Reversed and remanded.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal mistreatment. The plea agreement had a boilerplate term under which the state could seek restitution.
At the restitution hearing the prosecutor argued that the purpose of the hearing was for defendant to choose whether to agree to restitution or withdraw his plea, and the court agreed and imposed restitution for a CARES evaluation. In reversing, the Court of Appeals explained that, although defendant had agreed to pay restitution, the agreement was limited to the restitution that could be imposed by law, and thus he could still object to a specific restitution demand.
State v. Minor 297 Or App 461 (May 15, 2019) (Armstrong) (Washington County, Erwin)
FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Sufficiency of the evidence
Evidence supported issuance of a stalking order. Affirmed.
TJN v. Schweitzer 297 Or App 481 (May 15, 2019) (Armstrong) (Columbia County, Callahan)
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Ineffective assistance of counsel
The trial court did not err in finding that counsel's tactical choices were effective with respect to a complex aggravated-murder trial, but ineffective with respect to sentencing. Affirmed.
Brumwell v. Premo 297 Or App 498 (May 15, 2019) (Tookey) (Marion County, Nachtigal)
INSANITY - Release following guilty-except-for-insanity finding
Personality disorder is not a basis for the PSRB to retain jurisdiction. Reversed and remanded.
Petitioner was found guilty-except-for-insanity and placed under the jurisdiction of the PSRB. Thereafter, he sought termination of that jurisdiction. The PSRB found that petitioner suffered from anxiety disorder, a mental disease or defect, and pedophilia, a personality disorder which rendered him dangerous to others. The Court of Appeals explained that, to retain jurisdiction, the PSRB had to find that petitioner was a danger to others because of his mental disease or defect, Because petitioner was a danger to others because of his personality disorder, the PSRB's findings did not support retention of jurisdiction.
