State v. Hobbs

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hobbs

437 P.3d 331, 296 Or. App. 901

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 3, 2019

DocketA166587

StatusPublished

This text of 437 P.3d 331 (State v. Hobbs) 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. Hobbs, 437 P.3d 331, 296 Or. App. 901 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*902Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. She was sentenced to, among other things, 18 months' probation, and the imposition of $ 567 in court-appointed attorney fees. We write to address only defendant's assignment of error to the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees. We reject defendant's remaining assignment of error without written discussion.

As to the attorney fees, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error when it ordered her to pay those fees because the record contains no evidence of defendant's ability to pay them. See State v. Coverstone , 260 Or. App. 714, 716, 320 P.3d 670 (2014) (holding that the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees is plain error where the record is silent as to defendant's ability to pay the fees ordered). The state concedes that the trial court's imposition of attorney fees constitutes plain error. We agree, accept the state's concession, and further conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case because of the gravity of the error given defendant's indigence and the lack of any evidence that defendant has financial resources to pay the fees. See, e.g. , State v. Walker , 274 Or. App. 501, 502, 360 P.3d 754 (2015) (setting out similar reasons to support exercise of our discretion).

Portion of judgment 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

*902Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. She was sentenced to, among other things, 18 months' probation, and the imposition of $ 567 in court-appointed attorney fees. We write to address only defendant's assignment of error to the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees. We reject defendant's remaining assignment of error without written discussion.

As to the attorney fees, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error when it ordered her to pay those fees because the record contains no evidence of defendant's ability to pay them. See State v. Coverstone , 260 Or. App. 714, 716, 320 P.3d 670 (2014) (holding that the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees is plain error where the record is silent as to defendant's ability to pay the fees ordered). The state concedes that the trial court's imposition of attorney fees constitutes plain error. We agree, accept the state's concession, and further conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case because of the gravity of the error given defendant's indigence and the lack of any evidence that defendant has financial resources to pay the fees. See, e.g. , State v. Walker , 274 Or. App. 501, 502, 360 P.3d 754 (2015) (setting out similar reasons to support exercise of our discretion).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 P.3d 331, 296 Or. App. 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hobbs-orctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack