State v. Helms

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Helms

350 P.3d 606, 271 Or. App. 445, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 635

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 28, 2015

Docket12C42569, 12C47452; A155275, A155276

StatusPublished

This text of 350 P.3d 606 (State v. Helms) 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. Helms, 350 P.3d 606, 271 Or. App. 445, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 635 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated case, defendant appeals judgments of conviction for one count of criminal mistreatment in Case Number 12C42569 and five counts of first-degree sexual abuse in Case Number 12C47452. He was sentenced to terms of incarceration totaling 216 months and ordered to pay, among other amounts, a total of $8,510 in court-appointed attorney fees. He contends that the trial court plainly erred in ordering him to pay those court-appointed attorney fees in the absence of any evidence in the record to support a finding that he was or might be able to pay.¹ The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred by imposing attorney fees where the record was silent regarding defendant’s ability to pay those fees. We agree. See State v. Chavez, 263 Or App 187, 326 P3d 329, rev den, 356 Or 163 (2014) (the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees is plain error where the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay those fees); State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (same). Furthermore, for the reasons articulated in Coverstone, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error. In particular, the error is grave in light of the amount of fees ordered, the length of defendant’s prison term, and the lack of evidence in the record suggesting that defendant might be able to pay the fees. See Coverstone, 260 Or App at 716-17; see also State v. Crimmins, 267 Or App 316, 317, 341 P3d 750 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct plain error under similar circumstances). Accordingly, we accept the state’s concession, and reverse the portions of the judgments relating to attorney the fees.

In Case Numbers 12C42569 and 12C47452, portions of judgments requiring defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated case, defendant appeals judgments of conviction for one count of criminal mistreatment in Case Number 12C42569 and five counts of first-degree sexual abuse in Case Number 12C47452. He was sentenced to terms of incarceration totaling 216 months and ordered to pay, among other amounts, a total of $8,510 in court-appointed attorney fees. He contends that the trial court plainly erred in ordering him to pay those court-appointed attorney fees in the absence of any evidence in the record to support a finding that he was or might be able to pay.¹ The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred by imposing attorney fees where the record was silent regarding defendant’s ability to pay those fees. We agree. See State v. Chavez, 263 Or App 187, 326 P3d 329, rev den, 356 Or 163 (2014) (the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees is plain error where the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay those fees); State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (same). Furthermore, for the reasons articulated in Coverstone, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error. In particular, the error is grave in light of the amount of fees ordered, the length of defendant’s prison term, and the lack of evidence in the record suggesting that defendant might be able to pay the fees. See Coverstone, 260 Or App at 716-17; see also State v. Crimmins, 267 Or App 316, 317, 341 P3d 750 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct plain error under similar circumstances). Accordingly, we accept the state’s concession, and reverse the portions of the judgments relating to attorney the fees.

In Case Numbers 12C42569 and 12C47452, portions of judgments requiring defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 P.3d 606, 271 Or. App. 445, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-helms-orctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack