State v. Grant

Oregon Court of Appeals · 2025 · Evidence

EvidenceSet-aside of convictionRestitutionStatutory interpretationORS 137.225eligibilityset aside convictionrestitution

Facts

In 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated theft, and the trial court ordered him to pay $37,369 in restitution. In 2022, defendant moved to set aside the conviction under ORS 137.225, and later argued that the motion had to be granted because the state did not object within 120 days. The state then objected, asserting that defendant still owed $25,812.07 in restitution and therefore had not fully complied with the sentence of the court. The trial court ultimately denied the motion, and defendant appealed.

Issue

Whether a defendant who still owes court-ordered restitution has "fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court" under ORS 137.225(1)(a), and therefore is eligible to seek to have the conviction set aside. Relatedly, if the defendant is not eligible under ORS 137.225(1)(a), whether the state's untimely objection or ORS 137.225(3)(a)'s bar on considering monetary obligations changes that result.

Rule

Under ORS 137.225(1)(a), a defendant must satisfy threshold eligibility requirements before a court may consider granting a motion to set aside a conviction. Court-ordered restitution imposed for the conviction is part of the defendant's criminal sentence, so a defendant who still owes restitution has not "fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court" and is not eligible for relief. The provisions in ORS 137.225(3)(a) and (3)(b) apply only after the defendant is otherwise eligible under ORS 137.225(1)(a).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Omar Vega moved under ORS 137.225 to set aside a theft conviction. His probation had ended years earlier, but the criminal judgment still required him to pay $9,400 in restitution, of which $3,100 remained unpaid.

Is Omar eligible to seek set-aside relief under ORS 137.225(1)(a)?

Explanation. Threshold eligibility under ORS 137.225(1)(a) requires that the person have fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court. The majority held that restitution ordered in the criminal judgment is part of the criminal sentence. Because Omar still owes restitution, he is not eligible, regardless of whether probation is complete or whether the prosecutor objects. (Derived from State v. Grant (n.d.).)