Oregon Appellate Ct - Aug 9, 2017
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Sara Werboff • August 11, 2017 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> * </summary> Per Curiam - On Reconsideration, Amending Judgment to Omit Restitution Award Defendant prevailed in a case challenging restitution for the unla...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | * | + | *Per Curiam - On Reconsideration, Amending Judgment to Omit Restitution Award |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| − | Per Curiam - On Reconsideration, Amending Judgment to Omit Restitution Award | + | '''Per Curiam - On Reconsideration, Amending Judgment to Omit Restitution Award''' |
Defendant prevailed in a case challenging restitution for the unlawful taking of a raptor and the court concluded that there was no evidence that the victim, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) suffered any economic damages. In light of that conclusion, the appropriate disposition was not to remand for resentencing, but rather to enter an amended judgment omitting restitution. | Defendant prevailed in a case challenging restitution for the unlawful taking of a raptor and the court concluded that there was no evidence that the victim, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) suffered any economic damages. In light of that conclusion, the appropriate disposition was not to remand for resentencing, but rather to enter an amended judgment omitting restitution. | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158354A.pdf State v. Shockey], 287 Or App 236 (2017) (per curiam) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158354A.pdf State v. Shockey], 287 Or App 236 (2017) (per curiam) | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2017-08-11 10:19:02 -0700 | Sara.f.werboff@opds.state.or.us:Sara Werboff }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:19, August 12, 2017
Per Curiam - On Reconsideration, Amending Judgment to Omit Restitution Award
Defendant prevailed in a case challenging restitution for the unlawful taking of a raptor and the court concluded that there was no evidence that the victim, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) suffered any economic damages. In light of that conclusion, the appropriate disposition was not to remand for resentencing, but rather to enter an amended judgment omitting restitution.
State v. Shockey, 287 Or App 236 (2017) (per curiam)
