Background
Cole Thomas Smith pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), reckless driving, and assault in the fourth degree. Smith was involved in a motor vehicle collision on Interstate 205 in which he rear-ended a victim’s car at high speed, causing serious injuries to four people, including two children. A blood draw showed Smith had a blood alcohol content of .239.
The plea agreement contained a restitution provision requiring Smith to stipulate to liability for restitution “to all counts in the indictment or information, including any and all counts being dismissed,” and to waive objections to restitution “per ORS 137.106(1) and (5).” The agreement further provided that the state could set a restitution hearing within 90 days if the amount was not agreed to initially. The trial court entered judgment of conviction on April 30, 2024, without imposing restitution.
On July 30, 2024—91 days after judgment—the state filed a Notice Requesting Restitution. Smith objected, arguing the deadline had passed. The trial court found good cause to extend the deadline, citing ongoing medical treatment for one victim and time needed to obtain victims’ medical records. The court awarded restitution of $17,888.89.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the restitution award, holding that the state did not breach the plea agreement. The court focused on the plain language of the restitution provision, which explicitly stated that Smith “waive[d] any objections to restitution per ORS 137.106(1) and (5).” By referencing the statute in the plea agreement, the parties expressly incorporated ORS 137.106(1)(b)(A), which provides that a court “may extend the time by which the district attorney must file the motion for good cause.”
The court applied contract law principles, concluding the provision was unambiguous. Because the plea agreement expressly incorporated the statutory good cause exception, and the trial court found that good cause existed—based on ongoing victim medical treatment and the time required to obtain medical records—the state did not breach its agreement by filing beyond the 90-day period.
The court distinguished the case from State v. Lynch, 305 Or App 122 (2020), where a plea agreement used the phrase “amount TBD w/in 90 days” without reference to the statute and the trial court found no good cause. Here, the explicit statutory incorporation and the finding of good cause made all the difference.
Key Takeaways
- When a plea agreement references a statute, the parties are deemed to have incorporated that statute’s provisions—including any exceptions or extensions it provides.
- A defendant’s waiver of restitution objections “per” a specific statute means the waiver extends to the protections and procedures within that statute.
- A trial court may extend the 90-day restitution deadline for good cause, including delays caused by ongoing victim medical treatment and time needed to gather medical records.
- A defendant may not use a late filing to avoid restitution liability when the plea agreement itself expressly incorporated statutory grounds for extension.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the interpretation of restitution provisions in plea agreements. Defendants who stipulate to restitution obligations and waive objections with reference to ORS 137.106 are bound by the statutory good cause exception, even if the plea agreement itself does not explicitly restate it. Prosecutors need not negotiate around the statutory timeline—the reference to the statute itself operates as a mutual agreement to abide by its terms.
The holding has practical significance for victim compensation. Because the court upheld the restitution order despite the technical 91-day filing, victims harmed by Smith’s high-speed rear-end collision received the full $17,888.89 in compensation for their medical expenses. The decision protects victims’ interests by preventing defendants from using technical deadline arguments to defeat restitution when the plea agreement contemplated such extensions.