State v. Manoff
This text of 435 P.3d 803 (State v. Manoff) 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.
Opinion
*567Defendant challenges the imposition of three $200 felony fines imposed as part of his sentence for his property crime convictions. Defendant points to ORS 161.645, which requires a court to consider, when imposing such fines, the financial resources of the defendant and the burden the payment of the fine will impose on the defendant.1 According to defendant, the trial court did not take into account those considerations when it announced at sentencing that it would impose the three $200 fines. Defendant acknowledges that he did not object to the imposition of the fines when the court announced them but argues that the record lacks any evidence that he has the ability to pay the fines and that we should reverse the fines on a plain-error basis. We reject his argument.
The trial court's imposition of a fine subject to ORS 161.645"is not susceptible to plain-error review." State v. Smith ,
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
435 P.3d 803, 295 Or. App. 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-manoff-orctapp-2019.