State v. Butcher

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Butcher

370 P.3d 562, 277 Or. App. 257, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 356

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 30, 2016

Docket14CR0097; A156800

StatusPublished

This text of 370 P.3d 562 (State v. Butcher) 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. Butcher, 370 P.3d 562, 277 Or. App. 257, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 356 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this criminal appeal, in which defendant seeks reversal of her convictions for first- and second-degree robbery, we write only to address defendant’s contention that the trial court plainly erred in requiring her to pay court-appointed attorney fees of $440. The state concedes that the trial court erred, because the record is silent as to whether defendant “is or may be able” to pay those fees. 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.”); see also State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that the defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed). We agree that the trial court plainly erred and, for the reasons set forth in State v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 264 Or App 346, 349, 332 P3d 338 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $400 in court-appointed attorney fees because the amount was “substantial” in light of defendant’s circumstances), we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

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

In this criminal appeal, in which defendant seeks reversal of her convictions for first- and second-degree robbery, we write only to address defendant’s contention that the trial court plainly erred in requiring her to pay court-appointed attorney fees of $440. The state concedes that the trial court erred, because the record is silent as to whether defendant “is or may be able” to pay those fees. 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.”); see also State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that the defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed). We agree that the trial court plainly erred and, for the reasons set forth in State v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 264 Or App 346, 349, 332 P3d 338 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $400 in court-appointed attorney fees because the amount was “substantial” in light of defendant’s circumstances), we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 P.3d 562, 277 Or. App. 257, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-butcher-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack