State v. Larionov

346 Or. App. 57

Opinion

No. 1108 December 24, 2025 57

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

FRED FEODOOR LARIONOV,

Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 24CR09968; A184986

Courtland Geyer, Judge. Submitted November 14, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

58 State v. Larionov

LAGESEN, C. J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction, based on his guilty plea, for fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence (Counts 1, 2, and 5) and unlawful use of a weapon - firearm (Count 6), for which the trial court sentenced him to 14 days in jail and 48 months of probation . He assigns error to the order in the judgment, with respect to Counts 1, 2, and 6, that defendant shall pay any required per diem fees, because that requirement to pay per diem fees was not announced in open court at sentencing. The state concedes the error. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. We remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm.1 “A criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court. A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 581, 530 P3d 118, rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023) (internal citations omitted ). Here, the trial court erred in imposing the requirement to pay a per diem fee in the judgment because it was not announced at sentencing, and the appropriate remedy is a remand for resentencing. See State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244, 545 P3d 772, rev den, 372 Or 720 (2024) (remanding for resentencing when requirement to pay per diem fees was not announced in open court at sentencing).

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.