Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DANIEL CARL SMITH, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1988-11-02
Citations: 93 Or. App. 639
Docket Number: B70-396; CA A44828
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DANIEL CARL SMITH, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 93
Pages: 639–641

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 22,
order of restitution vacated; remanded for reconsideration November 2, 1988
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DANIEL CARL SMITH, Appellant.
(B70-396; CA A44828)
763 P2d 419
George W. Kelly, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
RICHARDSON, P. J.

Opinion:
RICHARDSON, P. J.
Defendant appeals his conviction, after a trial to the court on stipulated facts, for criminal mischief in the third degree. ORS 164.345. The court placed him on five years probation; one condition of probation is that he pay restitution of $405. Defendant's sole contention is that the trial court failed to consider his financial resources before imposing restitution.
The state contends that defendant's assignment of error is not reviewable under ORS 138.040, which it argues limits review of a sentence to whether it exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. In State v. Carmickle, 307 Or 1, 762 P2d 290 (1988), the court concluded that probation is not a "sentence" as the term sentence is used in ORS 138.040. It held "that an order of probation is appealable as a judgment on conviction and the appeal or review is not limited," 307 Or at 7, as the state argues. Consequently, whether the trial court properly imposed restitution is reviewable.
Defendant argues that, even though he raised the issue, the court did not consider his financial resources or his ability to pay restitution, as required by ORS 137.106. The state concedes that, if the issue is reviewable, the record does not show that the trial court followed the dictates of the statute. State v. Barnes, 58 Or App 516, 648 P2d 1306 (1982). We agree.
Order of restitution vacated; remanded for reconsideration.