144.275 Parole
of adults in custody sentenced to pay compensatory fines or make restitution;
schedule of payments.
Whenever the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision orders the
release on parole of an adult in custody who has been ordered to pay
compensatory fines pursuant to ORS 137.101 or to make restitution pursuant to
ORS 137.106, but with respect to whom payment of all or a portion of the fine
or restitution was suspended until the release of the adult in custody from
imprisonment, the board may establish a schedule by which payment of the
compensatory fine or restitution shall be resumed. In fixing the schedule and
supervising the performance of the paroled adult in custody thereunder, the
board shall consider the factors specified in ORS 137.106 (5). The board shall
provide to the sentencing court a copy of the schedule and any modifications
thereof. [1977 c.271 §6; 1989 c.46 §1; 2003 c.670 §2; 2019 c.213 §31; 2022 c.57
§2]
Note: 144.275 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 144
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Thomas v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 63 P.3d 29 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” Under ORS 144.275 (1985), “Whenever the State Board of Parole orders the release on parole of an inmate who has been sentenced to make restitution pursuant to ORS 137.”
State v. Johnson, 593 P.2d 1216 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“Defendant argues and the state concedes that the court cannot order restitution in conjunction with a sentence of incarceration for a crime which was committed prior to the effective date of ORS 161.”
State v. Wilcher, 773 P.2d 803 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“675(1) to specify a payment schedule in its original restitution order, even though the Board of Parole may modify it later under ORS 144.275. The state argues that Ewing no longer controls, because ORS 161.”
State v. Gardner, 679 P.2d 306 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Although the order provides that the amount is due six months after parole expires, ORS 144.275 authorizes the parole board to devise a payment schedule consistent with a defendant’s ability to pay the restitution.”
State v. Kipp, 630 P.2d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“” ORS 144.275 provides: "Whenever the State Board of Parole orders the release on parole of an inmate who has been sentenced to make restitution pursuant to ORS 137.”
State v. Harvey, 582 P.2d 476 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“” ORS 144.275 provides in pertinent part: "Whenever the State Board of Parole orders the release on parole of an inmate who has been sentenced to make restitution * * *, but with respect to whom payment of all or a portion of the restitution was suspended until his release from…”
State v. Ewing, 585 P.2d 34 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“The state in effect requests that we overrule Calderilla because of ORS 144.275, which provides: "Whenever the State Board of Parole orders the release on parole of an inmate who has been sentenced to make restitution pursuant to ORS 137.”
State v. Reece, 641 P.2d 1141 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “ORS 144.275 provides: “Whenever the State Board of Parole orders the release on parole of an inmate who has been sentenced to make restitution pursuant to ORS 137.”
State v. Gaines, 798 P.2d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“In contrast, defendant’s assignment of error does not directly implicate the “imposition, amount or distribution of the restitution.” Rather, it concerns an order of restitution imposed as a condition of parole.”
State v. Secreto, 636 P.2d 438 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “ORS 144.275. The sentencing order, however, is faulty in that, having sentenced defendant to pay costs, it does not comply with ORS 161.”
State v. Motschenbacher, 986 P.2d 1246 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“The trial court found that defendant has the ability to pay the full amount of restitution and that defendant is a skilled person and not of poor health.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.