State v. Devereaux

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Devereaux

DecidedApril 1, 2026

DocketA186208

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Devereaux (State v. Devereaux) 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. Devereaux, (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

186 April 1, 2026 No. 252

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. FRANK EDWARD DEVEREAUX III, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24CN03891; A186208

Jay A. McAlpin, Judge. (General Judgment November 18, 2024) Charles M. Zennaché, Judge. (General Judgments December 6, 2024) Submitted February 13, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joel Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Interim 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 judgment deleting provision requiring payment of fees for participation in pro- grams as an inmate; otherwise affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 186 (2026) 187

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals from a contempt judgment which included a provision, which appeared for the first time in the judgment, ordering defendant to “pay, as directed, all fees assessed for participation in programs as an inmate.” The state correctly concedes that preservation is excused and that it was error to include the term in the judgment with- out announcing it at sentencing. See State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244, 545 P3d 772, rev den, 372 Or 720 (2024). The parties also agree that, under the circumstances, the proper remedy is reversal of the provision ordering the payment of fees for participation in programs as an inmate, without remanding for resentencing. Cf. State v. Park, 317 Or App 692, 696, 505 P3d 1026 (2022) (reversing erroneous resti- tution order where both parties agree to reversal without remanding for resentencing and where “[t]he state explains that it does not plan to seek modification of any of the sen- tencing terms if the case were remanded”). Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment delet- ing provision requiring payment of fees for participation in programs as an inmate; otherwise affirmed.1

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

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

186 April 1, 2026 No. 252

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. FRANK EDWARD DEVEREAUX III, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24CN03891; A186208

Jay A. McAlpin, Judge. (General Judgment November 18, 2024) Charles M. Zennaché, Judge. (General Judgments December 6, 2024) Submitted February 13, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joel Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Interim 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 judgment deleting provision requiring payment of fees for participation in pro- grams as an inmate; otherwise affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 186 (2026) 187

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals from a contempt judgment which included a provision, which appeared for the first time in the judgment, ordering defendant to “pay, as directed, all fees assessed for participation in programs as an inmate.” The state correctly concedes that preservation is excused and that it was error to include the term in the judgment with- out announcing it at sentencing. See State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244, 545 P3d 772, rev den, 372 Or 720 (2024). The parties also agree that, under the circumstances, the proper remedy is reversal of the provision ordering the payment of fees for participation in programs as an inmate, without remanding for resentencing. Cf. State v. Park, 317 Or App 692, 696, 505 P3d 1026 (2022) (reversing erroneous resti- tution order where both parties agree to reversal without remanding for resentencing and where “[t]he state explains that it does not plan to seek modification of any of the sen- tencing terms if the case were remanded”). Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment delet- ing provision requiring payment of fees for participation in programs as an inmate; otherwise affirmed.1

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Devereaux, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-devereaux-orctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack