State v. Hollamon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hollamon

383 P.3d 969, 281 Or. App. 766, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1273

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 19, 2016

Docket14CR0825; A157960

StatusPublished

This text of 383 P.3d 969 (State v. Hollamon) 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. Hollamon, 383 P.3d 969, 281 Or. App. 766, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1273 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and reckless driving, ORS 811.140. She was sentenced to 24 months of probation. We write to address only defendant’s assignment of error regarding the imposition of $460 in court-appointed attorney fees. We reject defendant’s remaining assignments 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 her ability to pay them. The state concedes that the trial court’s imposition of attorney fees constitutes plain error under our case law. We agree that the trial court committed plain error, accept the state’s concession, and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case because the amount is not so small that it would not present a significant burden to a person without means, particularly in light of the $1,500 in fines also imposed by the judgment, and the record does not contain any evidence of defendant’s ability to pay the fees. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 271 Or App 693, 352 P3d 742, rev den, 358 Or 249 (2015) (exercising discretion to correct as plain error imposition of $550 in court-appointed attorney fees because the defendant was sentenced to five years in prison, the amount was not so small that it would not present a significant burden, and the record was devoid of evidence of the defendant’s ability to pay).

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

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and reckless driving, ORS 811.140. She was sentenced to 24 months of probation. We write to address only defendant’s assignment of error regarding the imposition of $460 in court-appointed attorney fees. We reject defendant’s remaining assignments 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 her ability to pay them. The state concedes that the trial court’s imposition of attorney fees constitutes plain error under our case law. We agree that the trial court committed plain error, accept the state’s concession, and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case because the amount is not so small that it would not present a significant burden to a person without means, particularly in light of the $1,500 in fines also imposed by the judgment, and the record does not contain any evidence of defendant’s ability to pay the fees. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 271 Or App 693, 352 P3d 742, rev den, 358 Or 249 (2015) (exercising discretion to correct as plain error imposition of $550 in court-appointed attorney fees because the defendant was sentenced to five years in prison, the amount was not so small that it would not present a significant burden, and the record was devoid of evidence of the defendant’s ability to pay).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 P.3d 969, 281 Or. App. 766, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hollamon-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack