State v. Hawkins

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hawkins

356 P.3d 1169, 273 Or. App. 387, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1004

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 26, 2015

Docket14CR04630; A157344

StatusPublished

This text of 356 P.3d 1169 (State v. Hawkins) 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. Hawkins, 356 P.3d 1169, 273 Or. App. 387, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting and sentencing him for one count of driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. On appeal, defendant claims, and the state concedes, that the trial court committed plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees because the record contains no evidence that defendant “is or may be able” to pay the fees. See ORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”).

We agree with the parties that the trial court committed plain error by imposing the fees. See State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fees). We further conclude that, for the reasons articulated in Coverstone, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting and sentencing him for one count of driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. On appeal, defendant claims, and the state concedes, that the trial court committed plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees because the record contains no evidence that defendant “is or may be able” to pay the fees. See ORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”).

We agree with the parties that the trial court committed plain error by imposing the fees. See State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fees). We further conclude that, for the reasons articulated in Coverstone, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 P.3d 1169, 273 Or. App. 387, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hawkins-orctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack