State v. Curtis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Curtis

228 P.3d 1216, 234 Or. App. 287, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 258

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 10, 2010

Docket021051055; A138696

StatusPublished

This text of 228 P.3d 1216 (State v. Curtis) 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. Curtis, 228 P.3d 1216, 234 Or. App. 287, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 258 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*288 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and reckless driving, ORS 811.140. We write only to address his fourth assignment of error, in which he contends that, because ORS 423.570(6)(b) provides that, “[i]n cases of financial hardship or when otherwise advisable in the interest of the released person’s rehabilitation[,]” the trial court “may waive or reduce the amount of the fee for any person whom the court has sentenced to probation[,]” the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked legal authority to waive defendant’s enhanced bench probation supervision fee of $15 per month. The state concedes that the trial court erred in that regard. Because we agree that the trial court declined to waive defendant’s fee based on the erroneous legal premise that it lacked authority to do so and that ORS 423.570(6)(b) explicitly confers such authority, we accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion under ORS 423.570(6)(b). We reject defendant’s other three assignments of error without discussion.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*288 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and reckless driving, ORS 811.140. We write only to address his fourth assignment of error, in which he contends that, because ORS 423.570(6)(b) provides that, “[i]n cases of financial hardship or when otherwise advisable in the interest of the released person’s rehabilitation[,]” the trial court “may waive or reduce the amount of the fee for any person whom the court has sentenced to probation[,]” the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked legal authority to waive defendant’s enhanced bench probation supervision fee of $15 per month. The state concedes that the trial court erred in that regard. Because we agree that the trial court declined to waive defendant’s fee based on the erroneous legal premise that it lacked authority to do so and that ORS 423.570(6)(b) explicitly confers such authority, we accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion under ORS 423.570(6)(b). We reject defendant’s other three assignments of error without discussion.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 P.3d 1216, 234 Or. App. 287, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-curtis-orctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack