State v. Dean

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 1, 2026
• Docket: A187005
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

150 July 1, 2026 No. 610

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MISTY DAWN DEAN, Defendant-Appellant. Union County Circuit Court 23CR57137; A187005

Thomas B. Powers, Judge. Submitted May 8, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* EGAN, J. Reversed and remanded for entry of amended judg- ment omitting the terms “and other assessments” and “and assessments”; otherwise affirmed.

______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). Nonprecedential Memo Op: 351 Or App 150 (2026) 151

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. That judgment includes a pro- vision concerning imposition of “other assessments” without further notice to defendant and without further court order. Defendant argues that inclusion of that provision was error, and the state agrees that, “under State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, [587] P3d [428] (2026), the trial court erred” and that, “[a]s in Martinez, this court should reverse and remand for entry of an amended judgment deleting the terms ‘and other assessments’ and ‘and assessments’ from the judg- ment.” We agree with and accept the state’s concession. Reversed and remanded for entry of amended judg- ment omitting the terms “and other assessments” and “and assessments”; otherwise affirmed.