State v. Moore

773 P.2d 25, 96 Or. App. 541, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 547
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Moore. Read the opinion of the Court — 103 Or. App. 440
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided May 10, 1989·No. 87-07-34018; CA A48540·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded no contest to sexual abuse in the first degree. ORS 163.425. The court found him guilty, suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for five years. The court found defendant to be sexually dangerous and ordered him to complete a treatment program as one condition of probation. ORS 426.675(3)(a). Defendant contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the imposition of that condition.1 We conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the court’s action.

Defendant also challenges a condition of probation requiring that he pay all costs incurred by the state in providing him a defense. No amount was specified. We agree with the state’s concession that the court’s failure to do so was error. ORS 161.665(1); State v. Tompkins, 69 Or App 258, 259, 684 P2d 629 (1984).

Probation condition requiring payment of costs vacated; remanded for reconsideration;2 otherwise affirmed.

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

State v. Moore, 773 P.2d 25, 96 Or. App. 541, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 547 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

773 P.2d 25 (State v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Donovan
770 P.2d 581 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1989)
State v. Carmickle
762 P.2d 290 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Tompkins
684 P.2d 629 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1984)