State v. Lovingier

380 P.3d 326, 280 Or. App. 629, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1015
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided August 31, 2016·No. CR1411339; A160184·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for third-degree theft. ORS 164.043. He assigns error to the trial court’s imposition, in the judgment, of a $60 “Mandatory State Amt.” Defendant asserts that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose that assessment. The state concedes that the trial court lacked authority to impose the $60 assessment and that that portion of the judgment should be reversed. We agree, and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Nutt, 274 Or App 217, 220-21, 360 P3d 636 (2015), rev den, 358 Or 551 (2016) (discussing trial court’s lack of authority to impose $60 “Mandatory State Amt” and reversing portion of judgment requiring the defendant to pay that assessment).

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

State v. Lovingier, 380 P.3d 326, 280 Or. App. 629, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1015 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

380 P.3d 326 (State v. Lovingier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Nutt
360 P.3d 636 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2015)