State v. Dickinson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Dickinson

507 P.3d 346, 318 Or. App. 553

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 23, 2022

DocketA172391

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 507 P.3d 346 (State v. Dickinson) 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. Dickinson, 507 P.3d 346, 318 Or. App. 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted January 24; in Case No. 16CR65757, portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $100 bench probation fee vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed; in Case Nos. 19CR10134 and 19CR48307, affirmed March 23, 2022

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TODD EDWARD DICKINSON, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 19CR10134, 16CR65757, 19CR48307; A172391 (Control), A172392, A173526, A173652 507 P3d 346

David E. Delsman, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joel C. Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM In Case No. 16CR65757, portion of judgment requir- ing defendant to pay $100 bench probation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. In Case Nos. 19CR10134 and 19CR48307, affirmed. 554 State v. Dickinson

PER CURIAM In this consolidated appeal of three cases, defen- dant raises five assignments of error. We reject all of the assignments without discussion, except the fifth assign- ment of error, in which defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing a $100 bench probation fee outside of defendant’s presence, in Case No. 16CR65757. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the state’s conces- sion. State v. Baccaro, 300 Or App 131, 137, 452 P3d 1022 (2019). Accordingly, in Case No. 16CR65757, we vacate the portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay a $100 bench probation fee and remand for resentencing. We affirm the other two cases. In Case No. 16CR65757, portion of judgment requir- ing defendant to pay $100 bench probation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. In Case Nos. 19CR10134 and 19CR48307, affirmed.

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

Submitted January 24; in Case No. 16CR65757, portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $100 bench probation fee vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed; in Case Nos. 19CR10134 and 19CR48307, affirmed March 23, 2022

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TODD EDWARD DICKINSON, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 19CR10134, 16CR65757, 19CR48307; A172391 (Control), A172392, A173526, A173652 507 P3d 346

David E. Delsman, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joel C. Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM In Case No. 16CR65757, portion of judgment requir- ing defendant to pay $100 bench probation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. In Case Nos. 19CR10134 and 19CR48307, affirmed. 554 State v. Dickinson

PER CURIAM In this consolidated appeal of three cases, defen- dant raises five assignments of error. We reject all of the assignments without discussion, except the fifth assign- ment of error, in which defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing a $100 bench probation fee outside of defendant’s presence, in Case No. 16CR65757. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the state’s conces- sion. State v. Baccaro, 300 Or App 131, 137, 452 P3d 1022 (2019). Accordingly, in Case No. 16CR65757, we vacate the portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay a $100 bench probation fee and remand for resentencing. We affirm the other two cases. In Case No. 16CR65757, portion of judgment requir- ing defendant to pay $100 bench probation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. In Case Nos. 19CR10134 and 19CR48307, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 P.3d 346, 318 Or. App. 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dickinson-orctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack