Case ID: or-app_44/html/0625-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      JOSEPH, P.J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted December 12, 1979,
    affirmed as modified and remanded February 19, 1980
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD EDWIN MILLER, aka Donald Edward Miller, Appellant.
    
    (No. 22744, CA 13673)
    606 P2d 689
    
      Thomas J. Crabtree, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
    Karen H. Green, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Lee and Richardson, Judges.
    JOSEPH, P.J.
   JOSEPH, P.J.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of :heft in the first degree. At sentencing the judge ordered restitution to the victim in the amount of ¡54,964, but he failed to schedule the payments pursuant to ORS 161.675(1). On appeal, this court renanded the case for resentencing to correct that error. State v. Miller, 37 Or App 108, 586 P2d 122 (1978). At ■esentencing the court did set up a schedule for repaynent and also purportedly imposed additional restituion in the amount of $450 for the expenses incurred oy the county in providing defendant’s court-appointed :ounsel. On appeal from resentencing order on renand, defendant argues that the court erred in inxeasing the sanction imposed. The state responds that such error was waived by defendant’s failure to make imely objection.

Citing State v. Thompson, 25 Or App 511, 514-15, 649 P2d 1292 (1976), the state concedes that the resenencing court was without power to impose costs upon efendant in addition to the restitution originally •rdered. Although the present case was simply revers-d and remanded per curiam, the cases cited should lave indicated to the resentencing court that the only rror was an omission: failure to establish a schedule f repayment. The resentencing court was without ower to assess additional sanction or otherwise deal arther with the underlying valid sentence. See State ex rel Gladden v. Kelly, 213 Or 197, 202, 324 P2d 486 1958); State v. Stackman, 43 Or App 235, 603 P2d 363 1979).

Ordinarily defects in the terms of restitution are aived by failure of the defendant to make timely bjection pursuant to ORS 137.106(3). State v. Keys, 41 Or App 379, 381, 597 P2d 1266 (1979); State v. Daniels, 1 Or App 243, 248, 597 P2d 1277 (1979). Here, the defendant has not waived his objection to the increasing of the sanction, an act which the resentencing court was without any authority to do. See State v. Braughton, 28 Or App 891, 893-94, n 2, 561 P2d 1040 (1977).

Affirmed as modified and remanded with instructions to vacate that portion of the resentencing order imposing costs. 
      
      
        State v. Calderilla, 34 Or App 1007, 580 P2d 578 (1978); State v. Ewing, 36 Or App 573, 585 P2d 34 (1978).