State v. Rieker, 461 P.3d 1083 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)
Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants. He was sentenced to probation, with restitution to be determined within 90 days. Approximately 9 months later, the state filed a motion to resentence defendant to order restitution based on a violation of the victim’s right. Defendant appealed from a judgment ordering him to pay approximately $2,000 in restitution, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to order restitution outside the 90-day statutory deadline because there was no good cause for the delay, as required by statute. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that, based on precedent, a trial court may not impose restitution beyond the 90-day statutory deadline absent a finding of good cause. However, “that decision does not address the trial court’s independent authority under the Oregon Constitution … to impose restitution as a remedy for a violation of a victim’s right.” Under Oregon’s Constitution, a crime victim has a right to receive prompt restitution from the convicted criminal who caused the victim’s loss or injury. “[T]he right of a victim to receive compensation is not purely statutory because the statutory scheme itself does not create the right of a victim to receive prompt restitution.” Thus, when a court is seeking to remedy a violation of the victim’s constitutional right to restitution, Oregon’s statutory scheme does not prevent the court from imposing restitution beyond the statutory deadline. The court held the trial court did not err in declining to consider good cause because it had constitutional authority to remedy a violation of the victim’s rights and impose restitution beyond the 90-day deadline.