State v. Daggett

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Daggett

385 P.3d 1281, 282 Or. App. 715, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1517

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

Docket14032327; A157923

StatusPublished

This text of 385 P.3d 1281 (State v. Daggett) 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. Daggett, 385 P.3d 1281, 282 Or. App. 715, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1517 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of felony violation of a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750(2)(b), raising two assignments of error. We reject his first assignment of error without discussion. In his second assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred in imposing, in the judgment, a $60 “Mandatory State Amt” on each count. Defendant asserts that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose those assessments. The state concedes that the trial court lacked authority to impose the $60 assessments and that those portions of the judgment should be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Nutt, 274 Or App 217, 220-21, 360 P3d 636 (2015), rev den, 358 Or 551 (2016) (discussing trial court’s lack of authority to impose $60 “Mandatory State Amt” and reversing portion of judgment requiring the defendant to pay that assessment).

Portions of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” 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 for two counts of felony violation of a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750(2)(b), raising two assignments of error. We reject his first assignment of error without discussion. In his second assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred in imposing, in the judgment, a $60 “Mandatory State Amt” on each count. Defendant asserts that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose those assessments. The state concedes that the trial court lacked authority to impose the $60 assessments and that those portions of the judgment should be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Nutt, 274 Or App 217, 220-21, 360 P3d 636 (2015), rev den, 358 Or 551 (2016) (discussing trial court’s lack of authority to impose $60 “Mandatory State Amt” and reversing portion of judgment requiring the defendant to pay that assessment).

Portions of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 P.3d 1281, 282 Or. App. 715, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-daggett-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack