State v. Janisse

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Janisse

DecidedJuly 8, 2026

DocketA185608

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Janisse (State v. Janisse) 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. Janisse, (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

434 July 8, 2026 No. 659

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARTIN ARNOLD JANISSE, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24CR06313; A185608

Beatrice N. Grace, Judge. Submitted June 18, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joshua B. Crowther, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Colm Moore, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Judgment reversed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment; otherwise affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 351 Or App 434 (2026) 435

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for mis- demeanor driving while suspended. On appeal, he argues that the trial court plainly erred in including in the judg- ment the language: “The court may increase the total amount owed by adding collection fees and other assess- ments. These fees and assessments may be added without further notice to the defendant and without further court order.” We recently addressed identical language in State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 587 P3d 428 (2026). In Martinez, we determined that “collection fees” are authorized under ORS 1.202 and could be included in the judgment. Id. at 278. However, we concluded that ORS 1.202 does not authorize the total amount a defendant owes to be increased by the addition of “other assessments” without notice to the defen- dant or a court order. Id. at 279. In Martinez, we reversed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting the references to other “assessments.” Id. at 280. The same analysis and disposition are appropriate here because the language in the judgment is identical. More specifically, we reverse the judgment and remand for entry of an amended judgment deleting the terms “and other assessments” and “and assessments” from the judgment. Judgment reversed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment; otherwise affirmed.

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

434 July 8, 2026 No. 659

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARTIN ARNOLD JANISSE, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24CR06313; A185608

Beatrice N. Grace, Judge. Submitted June 18, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joshua B. Crowther, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Colm Moore, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Judgment reversed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment; otherwise affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 351 Or App 434 (2026) 435

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for mis- demeanor driving while suspended. On appeal, he argues that the trial court plainly erred in including in the judg- ment the language: “The court may increase the total amount owed by adding collection fees and other assess- ments. These fees and assessments may be added without further notice to the defendant and without further court order.” We recently addressed identical language in State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 587 P3d 428 (2026). In Martinez, we determined that “collection fees” are authorized under ORS 1.202 and could be included in the judgment. Id. at 278. However, we concluded that ORS 1.202 does not authorize the total amount a defendant owes to be increased by the addition of “other assessments” without notice to the defen- dant or a court order. Id. at 279. In Martinez, we reversed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting the references to other “assessments.” Id. at 280. The same analysis and disposition are appropriate here because the language in the judgment is identical. More specifically, we reverse the judgment and remand for entry of an amended judgment deleting the terms “and other assessments” and “and assessments” from the judgment. Judgment reversed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Janisse, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-janisse-orctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack