ORS 138.083¹
Retention of authority by trial court for certain purposes

(1)(a) The sentencing court shall retain authority irrespective of any notice of appeal after entry of judgment of conviction to modify its judgment and sentence to correct any arithmetic or clerical errors or to delete or modify any erroneous term in the judgment. The court may correct the judgment either on the motion of one of the parties or on the court’s own motion after written notice to all the parties.

(b) If a sentencing court enters a corrected judgment under this subsection while an appeal of the judgment is pending, the court shall immediately forward a copy of the corrected judgment to the appellate court. Any modification of the appeal necessitated by the corrected judgment shall be made in the manner specified by rules adopted by the appellate court.

(2)(a) A judgment that orders payment of restitution but does not specify the amount of restitution imposed is final for the purpose of appealing the judgment.

(b) Notwithstanding the filing of a notice of appeal, the sentencing court retains authority to determine the amount of restitution and to enter a supplemental judgment to specify the amount and terms of restitution.

(c) If a sentencing court enters a supplemental judgment under this subsection while an appeal of the judgment of conviction is pending, the court shall immediately forward a copy of the supplemental judgment to the appellate court. Any modification of the appeal necessitated by the supplemental judgment may be made in the manner specified by rules adopted by the appellate court. [1989 c.790 §20; 1995 c.109 §1; 1997 c.389 §2; 2003 c.576 §165; 2007 c.547 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Defendant's failure to seek correc­tion of error on sen­ten­cing order does not bar defendant from seeking appellate review. State v. Rood, 129 Or App 422, 879 P2d 886 (1994). But see State v. Graham, 143 Or App 85, 923 P2d 664 (1996).

For judg­ments entered after September 8, 1995, proper avenue of redress for all unpreserved errors in terms of post-prison supervision is peti­tion to trial court, not ap­peal. State v. Graham, 143 Or App 85, 923 P2d 664 (1996)

Order denying mo­tion to correct judg­ment is not ap­pealable. State v. Hart, 188 Or App 650, 72 P3d 671 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court has authority to correct sen­ten­cing error notwithstanding that sen­tence has been executed. State v. Easton, 204 Or App 1, 126 P3d 1256 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 138—Appeals; Post-Conviction Relief, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors138.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 138, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­138ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information