Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. PAUL ROSS, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1991-08-28
Citations: 108 Or. App. 560
Docket Number: 89-2767 CR; CA A64448
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. PAUL ROSS, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 108
Pages: 560–561

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs March 1,
affirmed August 28, 1991
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. PAUL ROSS, Appellant.
(89-2767 CR; CA A64448)
815 P2d 719
Phil Studenberg, Klamath Falls, filed the brief for appellant.
Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and Deits, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty to theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. He challenges the part of his sentence relating to the amount of restitution imposed and the joint and several nature of his liability for that amount. The state concedes that the record provides insufficient data from which to determine the proper amount of restitution, but it argues that joint and several liability is proper.
We affirm the decision without deciding either issue. Defendant pled guilty. His right to appeal is provided by ORS 138.050, which limits the issues that we may review to whether the disposition exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is cruel and unusual. There is no statutory limit on the amount of restitution that may be imposed, and defendant does not argue that his sentence is cruel and unusual. We are without authority to review the issues that defendant raises. State v. King, 107 Or App 249, 810 P2d 413 (1991).
Affirmed.