Background
Adan Valdez pleaded guilty to criminal mischief. His plea agreement provided that the state would have 90 days following sentencing to determine the amount of restitution, with the judgment ordering him to “[p]ay restitution in an amount to be determined as ordered and pursuant to ORS 137.106” as a special condition of probation.
Within the 90-day window, the state filed a motion requesting entry of a supplemental judgment imposing restitution in the amount of $1,119. The trial court granted the motion and entered the supplemental judgment without holding a hearing and without any indication that Valdez had stipulated to the restitution amount.
Valdez appealed, assigning error to the imposition of restitution without a restitution hearing. The state conceded the error.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the supplemental judgment and remanded the case. The court held that the trial court erred in imposing restitution under the circumstances presented.
Under ORS 137.106(1)(b)(B), when the district attorney files a motion requesting restitution after the 90-day period, the trial court is statutorily required to set a restitution hearing. The only exception is if the defendant has stipulated to the amount of restitution under ORS 137.105(1)(b)(C), in which case the court may cancel the hearing and impose the stipulated amount. Here, the record did not reflect any stipulation by the defendant, and no hearing was held, making the restitution order improper.
The court applied the standard that compliance with restitution requirements is reviewed for errors of law, citing State v. Smith, 291 Or App 785 (2018). The statutory framework was clear: the mandatory hearing requirement could only be bypassed by defendant stipulation, which did not occur in this case.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts must hold a restitution hearing when the state files a post-sentencing motion for restitution, unless the defendant has expressly stipulated to the amount.
- Restitution cannot be imposed by supplemental judgment based solely on the prosecutor’s motion without satisfying the statutory procedural requirements.
- A plea agreement provision allowing the state 90 days to determine restitution does not eliminate the requirement for a formal hearing or stipulation before imposing the amount.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces due process protections in criminal sentencing by requiring trial courts to provide defendants a meaningful opportunity to be heard on restitution amounts, even when restitution was anticipated in the plea agreement. The ruling clarifies that procedure matters: prosecutors cannot simply file a motion and expect restitution to be imposed without judicial adherence to statutory safeguards.
For practitioners, the case confirms that when seeking post-sentencing restitution, the state must either obtain defendant stipulation or be prepared for a contested hearing. Trial courts cannot circumvent these requirements, and failure to comply results in reversible error necessitating remand for proper proceedings.