State v. Barger

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Barger

359 P.3d 1241, 274 Or. App. 190, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1152

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 30, 2015

DocketC132260CR; A156126

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 359 P.3d 1241 (State v. Barger) 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. Barger, 359 P.3d 1241, 274 Or. App. 190, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1152 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of first-degree robbery and third-degree robbery. In his first assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence over his objection. We reject that assignment without written discussion. We write only to address defendant’s second assignment of error, which concerns the imposition of attorney fees.

In that assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error when it ordered him to pay $2,976 in attorney fees when the record was silent as to whether he “is or may be able to pay” the costs of his defense. See ORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”). Defendant failed to preserve that claim of error but urges us to review and correct the error as “an error of law apparent on the record.” ORAP 5.45(1); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382, 823 P2d 956 (1991). The state concedes that the trial court committed plain error when it imposed attorney fees without making an ability-to-pay determination.

We accept the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred in imposing attorney fees of $2,976 on this record. See State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fees ordered). Further, we conclude that, for reasons similar to those expressed in Coverstone, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. Id. at 716-17.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of first-degree robbery and third-degree robbery. In his first assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence over his objection. We reject that assignment without written discussion. We write only to address defendant’s second assignment of error, which concerns the imposition of attorney fees.

In that assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error when it ordered him to pay $2,976 in attorney fees when the record was silent as to whether he “is or may be able to pay” the costs of his defense. See ORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”). Defendant failed to preserve that claim of error but urges us to review and correct the error as “an error of law apparent on the record.” ORAP 5.45(1); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382, 823 P2d 956 (1991). The state concedes that the trial court committed plain error when it imposed attorney fees without making an ability-to-pay determination.

We accept the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred in imposing attorney fees of $2,976 on this record. See State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fees ordered). Further, we conclude that, for reasons similar to those expressed in Coverstone, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. Id. at 716-17.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 P.3d 1241, 274 Or. App. 190, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barger-orctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack