State v. Ballew

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Ballew

722 P.2d 60, 80 Or. App. 457, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3142

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 23, 1986

Docket83-3477-K; CA A38140

StatusPublished

This text of 722 P.2d 60 (State v. Ballew) 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. Ballew, 722 P.2d 60, 80 Or. App. 457, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3142 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). His sentence was reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing in State v. Ballew, 70 Or App 617, 689 P2d 1330 (1984), because the trial court imposed costs and fines as conditions of probation without first considering defendant’s ability to pay. On remand, defendant requested assistance of counsel. The trial judge denied his request and imposed the same sentence, again without inquiring into defendant’s ability to pay the costs and fines. The state confesses error in the trial judge’s failure to appoint an attorney to assist defendant at resentencing. See State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 315, 647 P2d 904 (1982). The state also confesses error in the trial judge’s failure, as at defendant’s first sentencing, to inquire into defendant’s present and future ability to pay the costs and fines imposed. State v. Ballew, supra.

Reversed and remanded for appointment of counsel and for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). His sentence was reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing in State v. Ballew, 70 Or App 617, 689 P2d 1330 (1984), because the trial court imposed costs and fines as conditions of probation without first considering defendant’s ability to pay. On remand, defendant requested assistance of counsel. The trial judge denied his request and imposed the same sentence, again without inquiring into defendant’s ability to pay the costs and fines. The state confesses error in the trial judge’s failure to appoint an attorney to assist defendant at resentencing. See State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 315, 647 P2d 904 (1982). The state also confesses error in the trial judge’s failure, as at defendant’s first sentencing, to inquire into defendant’s present and future ability to pay the costs and fines imposed. State v. Ballew, supra.

Reversed and remanded for appointment of counsel and for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 P.2d 60, 80 Or. App. 457, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ballew-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack