State v. Gray

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Gray

833 P.2d 341, 113 Or. App. 552, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1317

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 24, 1992

Docket90-859, 90-1738 CA A68434, CA A68435

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 833 P.2d 341 (State v. Gray) 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. Gray, 833 P.2d 341, 113 Or. App. 552, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1317 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

[554]*554EDMONDS, J.

Defendant pled guilty to reckless driving, ORS 811.140, a Class A Misdemeanor, and failure to perform the duty of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705, a Class C Felony. The two convictions arose out of a collision between vehicles driven by defendant and the victim.¹ The court imposed a compensatory fine under ORS 137.101² as part of the sentence for the failure to perform the duties of a driver conviction. We vacate the fine.

Defendant assigns error to his sentence for reckless driving and to the compensatory fine. His arguments about the reckless driving sentence do not require discussion. He also argues that the court was without authority to impose the compensatory fine, because the victim’s injuries did not result from defendant’s failure to assist the victim. See State v. Eastman/Kovach, 292 Or 184, 637 P2d 609 (1981).

The state concedes that the court was without authority to impose the fine, but argues that the sentence is not reviewable, because defendant pled guilty. Reviewability exists under ORS 138.050 and ORS 138.053, because the unauthorized compensatory fine exceeds “the maximum allowable by law.” ORS 138.050(l)(a); see State v. Anderson, 113 Or App 416, 833 P2d 321 (1992); State v. Jones, 113 Or App 425, 833 P2d 320 (1992); see also ORS 138.222(4)(a); State v. Cox, 113 Or App 528, 530 n 1, 833 P2d 336 (1992).

The state argues that the error was not preserved, because defendant made no objection in the trial court. We have authority to review unpreserved legal errors that are [555]*555apparent on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45(2); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, 312 Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991). Review, however, must be accompanied by “an express conclusion that the error is one of law apparent on the face of the record” and “an express statement of the basis for the discretionary consideration of the claim of error,” Ailes v. Portland Meadows, supra, 312 Or at 382, which may include a consideration of these factors:

“[T]he competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in any other way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some manner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” 312 Or at 382 n 6.

As the state concedes, the trial court was without authority to impose a compensatory fine for the violation of ORS 811.705. Moreover, the court could not have imposed a $25,000 compensatory fine under ORS 137.101(1) for a reckless driving conviction. Reckless driving is a misdemeanor. ORS 811.140. ORS 161.635 limits fines for Class A misdemeanors to $2,500. ORS 161.635 is the source of authority for imposition of a compensatory fine under ORS 137.101(1). State v. Lovelace, 94 Or App 586, 591, 767 P2d 80, rev den 307 Or 571 (1989). Therefore, a fine under ORS 137.101(1) cannot exceed what is authorized by ORS 161.635. An unauthorized $25,000 fine imposed on a single individual is of sufficient gravity to warrant our consideration. We exercise our discretion to review defendant’s assignment of error. Inasmuch as the trial court was without any authority to impose the compensatory fine, we vacate it. See State v. Wills, 93 Or App 322, 761 P2d 1365 (1988), rev den 307 Or 611 (1989).

Compensatory fine vacated; otherwise affirmed.

²

ORS 137.101 provides, in part:

“(1) Whenever the court imposes a fine as penalty for the commission of a crime resulting in injury for which the person injured by the act constituting the crime has a remedy by civil action, unless the issue of punitive damages has been previously decided on a civil case arising out of the same act and transaction, the court may order that the defendant pay any portion of the fine separately to the clerk of the court as compensatory fines in the case. The clerk shall pay over to the injured victim or victims, as directed in the court’s order, moneys paid to the court as compensatory fines under this subsection. This section shall be liberally construed in favor of victims.

“ (2) Compensatory fines may be awarded in addition to restitution awarded under ORS 137.103 to 137.109.”

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

[554]*554EDMONDS, J.

Defendant pled guilty to reckless driving, ORS 811.140, a Class A Misdemeanor, and failure to perform the duty of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705, a Class C Felony. The two convictions arose out of a collision between vehicles driven by defendant and the victim.¹ The court imposed a compensatory fine under ORS 137.101² as part of the sentence for the failure to perform the duties of a driver conviction. We vacate the fine.

Defendant assigns error to his sentence for reckless driving and to the compensatory fine. His arguments about the reckless driving sentence do not require discussion. He also argues that the court was without authority to impose the compensatory fine, because the victim’s injuries did not result from defendant’s failure to assist the victim. See State v. Eastman/Kovach, 292 Or 184, 637 P2d 609 (1981).

The state concedes that the court was without authority to impose the fine, but argues that the sentence is not reviewable, because defendant pled guilty. Reviewability exists under ORS 138.050 and ORS 138.053, because the unauthorized compensatory fine exceeds “the maximum allowable by law.” ORS 138.050(l)(a); see State v. Anderson, 113 Or App 416, 833 P2d 321 (1992); State v. Jones, 113 Or App 425, 833 P2d 320 (1992); see also ORS 138.222(4)(a); State v. Cox, 113 Or App 528, 530 n 1, 833 P2d 336 (1992).

The state argues that the error was not preserved, because defendant made no objection in the trial court. We have authority to review unpreserved legal errors that are [555]*555apparent on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45(2); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, 312 Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991). Review, however, must be accompanied by “an express conclusion that the error is one of law apparent on the face of the record” and “an express statement of the basis for the discretionary consideration of the claim of error,” Ailes v. Portland Meadows, supra, 312 Or at 382, which may include a consideration of these factors:

“[T]he competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in any other way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some manner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” 312 Or at 382 n 6.

As the state concedes, the trial court was without authority to impose a compensatory fine for the violation of ORS 811.705. Moreover, the court could not have imposed a $25,000 compensatory fine under ORS 137.101(1) for a reckless driving conviction. Reckless driving is a misdemeanor. ORS 811.140. ORS 161.635 limits fines for Class A misdemeanors to $2,500. ORS 161.635 is the source of authority for imposition of a compensatory fine under ORS 137.101(1). State v. Lovelace, 94 Or App 586, 591, 767 P2d 80, rev den 307 Or 571 (1989). Therefore, a fine under ORS 137.101(1) cannot exceed what is authorized by ORS 161.635. An unauthorized $25,000 fine imposed on a single individual is of sufficient gravity to warrant our consideration. We exercise our discretion to review defendant’s assignment of error. Inasmuch as the trial court was without any authority to impose the compensatory fine, we vacate it. See State v. Wills, 93 Or App 322, 761 P2d 1365 (1988), rev den 307 Or 611 (1989).

Compensatory fine vacated; otherwise affirmed.

²

ORS 137.101 provides, in part:

“(1) Whenever the court imposes a fine as penalty for the commission of a crime resulting in injury for which the person injured by the act constituting the crime has a remedy by civil action, unless the issue of punitive damages has been previously decided on a civil case arising out of the same act and transaction, the court may order that the defendant pay any portion of the fine separately to the clerk of the court as compensatory fines in the case. The clerk shall pay over to the injured victim or victims, as directed in the court’s order, moneys paid to the court as compensatory fines under this subsection. This section shall be liberally construed in favor of victims.

“ (2) Compensatory fines may be awarded in addition to restitution awarded under ORS 137.103 to 137.109.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

833 P.2d 341, 113 Or. App. 552, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gray-orctapp-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack