Summary
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that including per diem fees in the judgment, when the trial court had orally waived all fines and fees at sentencing, was reversible error. The court reversed and remanded solely for deletion of the provision requiring payment of per diem fees and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Holdings
- Including per diem fees in the judgment when the fees were not announced at sentencing constitutes a substantive modification of the sentence and is reversible error.
- Resentencing is not necessary when the trial court stated at sentencing that the defendant would not be obligated to pay any fines or fees; the appellate court may reverse and remand solely for deletion of the erroneous provision.
Questions Presented
- Whether inclusion in the written judgment of per diem fees that were not announced at sentencing constituted a substantive modification of the sentence and reversible error.
- Whether resentencing was required when the trial court had expressly waived all fines and fees at sentencing.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (8)
- State v. DeCamp, 158 Or. App. 238, 242, 973 P.2d 922 (1999)(followed)
- State v. Barr, 331 Or. App. 242, 244-46, 545 P.3d 772 (2024)(followed)
- State v. Schay-Vivero, 333 Or. App. 168, 170-71, 552 P.3d 150 (2024)(followed)
- State v. Sankey, 289 Or. App. 846, 847, 409 P.3d 73 (2018)(followed)
- State v. Tison, 292 Or. App. 369, 374-75, 424 P.3d 823, rev. den., 363 Or. 744 (2018)(distinguished)
- State v. Edson, 329 Or. 127, 139, 985 P.2d 1253 (1999)(followed)
- State v. Martinez, 347 Or. App. 273, 280, ___ P.3d ___ (2026)(followed)
- State v. Avendano, 346 Or. App. 16, 20, ___ P.3d ___ (2025)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…