State v. Taylor

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 11-13-2014
  • Case #: A152039
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Nakamoto J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 138.050, the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction when defendant's claim is not a claim that the fee exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). He assigned error to the courts imposition of conviction fees. Defendant was convicted in 2009 of misdemeanor DUII, which was subsequently reversed and remanded. In 2012 defendant entered a guilty plea. The trial court noted a change in the law finding that the legislature had increased the "DUII conviction fee" from $130 to $255. The trial court found that the amended statute required courts to impose the higher fee regardless of when the offense occurred, so long as the court convicted the defendant after the effective date. Defendant argued that the fee violated the ex post facto clauses of the Oregon and United States constitutions. The State argued that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction. In order to have appellate jurisdiction, the jurisdiction must be taken from statutory provision. The Court found that under ORS 138.050, the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction when defendant's claim is not a claim that the fee exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. State's motion to dismiss, granted; appeal dismissed.

Advanced Search