Antunez v. Lampert

7 P.3d 735, 169 Or. App. 196, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1137

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 12, 2000
• Docket: 99-03-30, 348M CA A106518
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying post-conviction relief and requiring him to pay $975 as the cost of his court-appointed counsel. ORS 151.505(1).¹ We reject, without discussion, petitioner’s challenge to the denial of post-conviction relief and write only to address petitioner’s argument on appeal that the trial court erroneously imposed costs under ORS 151.505(1) because it “made no determination on the record regarding whether Appellant actually had adequate financial resources to pay the fees.”

Here, unlike in Bacote v. Johnson, 169 Or App 44, 7 P3d 729 (2000), petitioner’s counsel did explicitly argue to the trial court that “there is no finding * * * as to the ability of the defendant to make payment.” Assuming, without deciding, that the trial court was obligated to make an explicit determination as to petitioner’s ability to pay before imposing an award of costs under ORS 151.505(1),² our review of the record discloses that the trial court did, in fact, make a sufficient determination on the record.

Affirmed.

1 ORS 151.505(1) provides:

“At the conclusion of a case or matter in which the first accusatory instrument or petition in the trial court was filed after January 1,1998, and in which the court appointed counsel to represent a person, a trial or appellate court may include in its judgment an order that the person repay in full or in part the administrative costs of determining the eligibility of the person for appointed counsel and the costs of the legal and other services that are related to the provision of appointed counsel.”

Petitioner’s original pro se petition was filed on March 31, 1998. Accordingly, in this case, unlike in Alexander v. Johnson, 164 Or App 235, 990 P2d 929 (1999), ORS 151.505(1) applies.

2 See Bacote, 169 Or App at 49 n 3.