State v. Aldeguer

452 P.3d 1026, 300 Or. App. 639
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedNovember 20, 2019
DocketA163947
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 452 P.3d 1026 (State v. Aldeguer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Aldeguer, 452 P.3d 1026, 300 Or. App. 639 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Argued and submitted August 2, 2018; in Case Nos. 16CR08687, 16CR18535, and 16CR44055, portions of judgments requiring defendant to pay $100 bench probation fees vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed November 20, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ZACHARY DEAN ALDEGUER, aka Zachary Aldeguer, Defendant-Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 16CR08687, 16CR18535, 16CR44055; A163947 (Control), A163948, A163949 452 P3d 1026

Michael Newman, Judge. Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Landau, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM In Case Nos. 16CR08687, 16CR18535, and 16CR44055, portions of judgments requiring defendant to pay $100 bench probation fees vacated; remanded for resentencing; other- wise affirmed. 640 State v. Aldeguer

PER CURIAM In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant appeals judgments of conviction for five misdemeanors. Defendant was sentenced to bench probation on each count. On appeal, he challenges the sentencing court’s imposition on each count of the $100 bench probation fee mandated by ORS 137.540. He contends that the court erred by impos- ing those fees outside his presence and, further, that the error requires reversal. In State v. Baccaro, 300 Or App 131, 452 P3d 1022 (2019), we resolved an identical claim of error in a manner favorable to defendant’s position. For the rea- sons stated there, we vacate the portions of the judgments requiring defendant to pay $100 bench probation fees and remand for resentencing. In Case Nos. 16CR08687, 16CR18535, and 16CR44055, portions of judgments requiring defendant to pay $100 bench probation fees vacated; remanded for resentencing; other- wise affirmed.

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

Related

Evans v. Nooth
452 P.3d 1026 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 P.3d 1026, 300 Or. App. 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-aldeguer-orctapp-2019.