Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICHARD H. TALLENT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2014-06-18
Citations: 263 Or. App. 711
Docket Number: 1200404CR; A152970
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICHARD H. TALLENT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Tookey, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 263
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
Submitted May 2,
remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed June 18, 2014
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICHARD H. TALLENT, Defendant-Appellant.
Klamath County Circuit Court
1200404CR; A152970
328 P3d 838
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Peenesh H. Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Tookey, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of first-degree theft. ORS 164.055. As part of the sentence, the court imposed restitution in the amount of $959. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing part of the restitution — $250 related to damage to a victim's vehicle— in the absence of a causal relationship between defendant's criminal conduct and the economic loss in question. The state concedes that, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in imposing the restitution at issue. We agree and accept the concession. See State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 181, 637 P2d 602 (1981) (for imposition of restitution to be proper, a defendant's criminal activity must be the cause of pecuniary damage). Accordingly, the case must be remanded for resentencing.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.