��ʮ���²����

Delay in a motion requesting an amended judgment for restitution meets the “good cause” requirement if it is not due to neglect, inadvertence, or inattentiveness. Awaiting information from a victim's compensation program does constitute "good cause".

Roque Tomas Martinez (Martinez) was convicted of second-degree assault. Eighty-five days after the conviction, the state requested and was granted an amended reward granting restitution to the victim. The trial court determined that the delay was for good cause, because the prosecutor was forced to await a decision from victim's compensation program. On appeal, Martinez asserted that the state’s reasoning did not amount to “good cause”. The Court of Appeals held that inadvertence, neglect, and inattentiveness to the passage of time do not meet the requirement. However, the Court found that despite lack of cooperation from the victim, necessary documentation was provided to support a restitution award. Thus, the lack of cooperation was not the cause for delay, but rather the wait for the necessary information was the cause, which met the standard for “good cause”. Affirmed.