Time and method of payment of fines, restitution and costs
Source:
Section 161.675 — Time and method of payment of fines, restitution and costs, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html.
Notes of Decisions
Revocation of probation can occur only if court specifically finds: (1) The defendant has present financial ability to repay costs involved without hardship to himself or family; and (2) his failure to repay is intentional, contumacious default. State v. Fuller, 12 Or App 152, 504 P2d 1393 (1973), Sup Ct review denied, aff’d 40 L Ed 2d 642, 94 S Ct 2116
There is no constitutional objection to sentence that places defendant on probation on condition that he repay costs. State v. Fuller, 12 Or App 152, 504 P2d 1393 (1973), Sup Ct review denied, aff’d 40 L Ed 2d 642, 94 S Ct 2116
Where trial court sentenced defendant to 3 years’ imprisonment following conviction for first degree forgery and further ordered restitution of victim, which order contained no “specified period of time” or “specified installments”, order was not sufficiently specific for defendant to know what was required of him. State v. Calderilla, 34 Or App 1007, 580 P2d 578 (1978)
Where defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of motor vehicle prior to effective date of this section, trial court, upon revocation of probation, had no authority to impose condition of restitution on any parole he might later receive. State v. Harvey, 35 Or App 719, 582 P2d 476 (1978)
ORS 144.275, empowering Board of Parole to establish restitution schedule for parolees, did not relieve trial court of duty to enter order specifying, inter alia, time, place and manner of payment. State v. Ewing, 36 Or App 573, 585 P2d 34 (1978); State v. Secreto, 54 Or App 709, 636 P2d 438 (1981)
Where bail money was deposited with court subject to express condition that it be forfeited for costs and trial court denied motion by third party for its return and referred to it as source for payment of costs, this was sufficient finding of ability to pay costs under this section. State v. Wise, 40 Or App 303, 594 P2d 1313 (1979)
Where payment of restitution was condition of probation, sentencing order which specified that amount of restitution was to be “paid at a rate and on a schedule to be determined by probation officer” was improper as such a plan must be ordered by the court and not probation officer. State v. Randolph, 49 Or App 399, 619 P2d 680 (1980)
Trial court cannot, on remand, impose payment for appellate counsel attorney fees as probation condition. State v. Rowton, 57 Or App 431, 645 P2d 551 (1982)
Trial court properly found defendant had present ability to pay victim assistance assessment and cost of appointed counsel. State v. Wetzel, 94 Or App 426, 765 P2d 835 (1988)
Trial courts delegation to Board of Parole determination of defendant’s restitution payment schedule was not authorized. State v. Wilcher, 96 Or App 603, 773 P2d 803 (1989)
Where defendant waived his right to be heard and object to imposition of restitution in trial court, defendant waived right to challenge imposition of restitution on appeal. State v. Carpenter, 101 Or App 489, 791 P2d 145 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
11 WLJ 288, 291 (1975); 55 OLR 101 (1976)
Up to date