STATE OF OREGON v. CORINA SHOCKEY (2017)

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CORINA SHOCKEY, Defendant-Appellant.

A158354

Decided: August 09, 2017

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erin J. Snyder Severe, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; award of restitution reversed; remanded for entry of amended judgment omitting restitution award; otherwise affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Shockey, 285 Or App 718, ___ P3d ___ (2017), in which we held that the statutory civil penalty for the unlawful taking of a raptor authorized by ORS 496.705 did not establish that the victim of defendant's crime, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), had suffered economic damages so as to permit the award of restitution that the trial court ordered defendant to pay. We remanded for resentencing based on our determination that no other evidence supported the award of restitution to ODFW. Defendant points out that we concluded that there is no evidence to support a finding that ODFW suffered any economic damages as a result of defendant's conduct and argues that that determination forecloses the trial court from imposing either restitution or a compensatory fine on remand. Thus, in defendant's view, the proper disposition is to reverse the restitution award and remand for entry of an amended judgment omitting restitution. The state has not opposed the petition. Under those circumstances, we agree with defendants, allow reconsideration, and modify our opinion to provide for the following disposition: “Award of restitution reversed; remanded for entry of amended judgment omitting restitution award; otherwise affirmed.” To the extent our opinion refers to a remand for resentencing in other places, we disavow those references.

PER CURIAM

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network