State v. Cason

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Cason

389 P.3d 417, 283 Or. App. 901, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 240

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 23, 2017

DocketC141904CR; A158773

StatusPublished

This text of 389 P.3d 417 (State v. Cason) 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. Cason, 389 P.3d 417, 283 Or. App. 901, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 240 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, defendant advances multiple assignments of error challenging his assault convictions and his sentences. We reject all of defendant’s assignments of error without published discussion, with the exception of his second assignment, which concerns the trial court’s imposition of court-appointed attorney fees. In that assignment, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing fees in the amount of $3,095, because there is no evidence in the record that he is or may be able to pay them. See ORS 151.505(3); ORS 161.665(4). He further argues that we should exercise our discretion to correct the error under the circumstances, including the large amount of the award and defendant’s lengthy prison term of 70 months. The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in that regard and that we should exercise our discretion to correct the error. We accept the state’s concession and, for reasons similar to those expressed in State v. Fleet, 270 Or App 246, 247, 347 P3d 345 (2015), exercise our discretion to reverse the imposition of attorney fees.

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 appeal, defendant advances multiple assignments of error challenging his assault convictions and his sentences. We reject all of defendant’s assignments of error without published discussion, with the exception of his second assignment, which concerns the trial court’s imposition of court-appointed attorney fees. In that assignment, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing fees in the amount of $3,095, because there is no evidence in the record that he is or may be able to pay them. See ORS 151.505(3); ORS 161.665(4). He further argues that we should exercise our discretion to correct the error under the circumstances, including the large amount of the award and defendant’s lengthy prison term of 70 months. The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in that regard and that we should exercise our discretion to correct the error. We accept the state’s concession and, for reasons similar to those expressed in State v. Fleet, 270 Or App 246, 247, 347 P3d 345 (2015), exercise our discretion to reverse the imposition of attorney fees.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 P.3d 417, 283 Or. App. 901, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cason-orctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack