- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
- Date Filed: 10-07-2015
- Case #: A155649
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; Flynn, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was convicted of attempted driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), and the trial court imposed a $750 “fine,” $173 in “attorney fees,” $100 for a “Bench Probation Assessment,” and a $60 “Mandatory State Amt.” Defendant appealed, assigning three errors. The Court rejected the first and second assignments of error regarding the number of deciding jury members without substantial discussion. Defendant’s third assignment of error focused on the imposed “Mandatory State Amt,” of $60. The State conceded that the trial court may have erred, but argued that the proper response would be to remand the issue to the trial court to determine whether it meant for the “Mandatory State Amt” to be a fine. The Court found that the trial court did not state a basis for imposing the “Mandatory State Amt.” Defendant suggested that the trial court likely used ORS 153.633, which does not authorize trial courts to impose a $60 “Mandatory State Amt,” but rather directs that up to $60 of a fine paid by a criminal defendant is allocated to the state. Because the trial court misapplied ORS 153.633 and had no reason to impose this sanction, the trial court’s imposition of a $60 “Mandatory State Amt” was Reversed; otherwise Affirmed.