State v. Knight

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Knight

383 P.3d 1002, 282 Or. App. 64, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1344

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

DocketCR1202050; A158204

StatusPublished

This text of 383 P.3d 1002 (State v. Knight) 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. Knight, 383 P.3d 1002, 282 Or. App. 64, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1344 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals after being convicted of various sexual offenses. We reject without discussion all of defendant’s assignments of error, except for his third. In that third assignment, defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing a “Mandatory State Amt” on each conviction. The state concedes that the trial court did not have authority to impose those separate assessments and that they should be reversed. We agree and accepted the state’s concession. See State v. Pranzetti, 269 Or App 410, 344 P3d 547 (2015) (explaining that no statute authorized the trial court to impose a “mandatory state amt”).

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay “mandatory state amt” on each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals after being convicted of various sexual offenses. We reject without discussion all of defendant’s assignments of error, except for his third. In that third assignment, defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing a “Mandatory State Amt” on each conviction. The state concedes that the trial court did not have authority to impose those separate assessments and that they should be reversed. We agree and accepted the state’s concession. See State v. Pranzetti, 269 Or App 410, 344 P3d 547 (2015) (explaining that no statute authorized the trial court to impose a “mandatory state amt”).

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay “mandatory state amt” on each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 P.3d 1002, 282 Or. App. 64, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-knight-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack