State v. Abulaziz

439 P.3d 1046, 297 Or. App. 402
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided May 1, 2019·No. A164456·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*403Appealing a judgment of conviction for a number of offenses involving controlled substances, defendant assigns error to, first, the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his car upon his arrest; second, the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his house pursuant to a warrant that issued following his arrest; and, in his third and fourth assignments of error, the trial court's imposition of the statutory felony fines on the felony counts based on an erroneous belief that the fines were "mandatory." We reject defendant's first and second assignments of error without further discussion. As to the third and fourth assignments of error, the state concedes that, under State v. Seidel , 294 Or. App. 389, 432 P.3d 304 (2018), rev. den. , 364 Or. 407, 434 P.3d 969 (2019), the court plainly erred when it concluded that the statutory fines on the felony counts were "mandatory" under ORS 137.286, because that provision authorizes waiver of fines. However, we decline to exercise our discretion to correct those errors for reasons similar to those articulated in Seidel . Id . at 396-97, 432 P.3d 304.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Abulaziz, 439 P.3d 1046, 297 Or. App. 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

439 P.3d 1046 (State v. Abulaziz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Seidel
432 P.3d 304 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2018)