State v. Mryczko

Lincoln County Circuit Court, Oregon

State v. Mryczko

379 P.3d 869, 279 Or. App. 441, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 860

CourtLincoln County Circuit Court, Oregon

DecidedJuly 7, 2016

Docket134296; A158604

StatusPublished

This text of 379 P.3d 869 (State v. Mryczko) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Lincoln County Circuit Court, Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Mryczko, 379 P.3d 869, 279 Or. App. 441, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 860 (Or. Super. Ct. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for eight counts of first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse. ORS 163.684. He raises four assignments of error on appeal. We reject without discussion defendant’s first, second, and third assignments of error and write only to address his fourth assignment, in which he challenges the trial court’s imposition of a $60 “Mandatory State Amt” on Counts 1, 4, and 5. Defendant asserts, and the state concedes, that the trial court lacked authority to impose those $60 assessments. We agree, and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780, 781, 358 P3d 328, rev den, 358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state’s concession that the trial court erred in imposing “a $60 ‘mandatory state amount’ for each” count of conviction).

Portions 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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for eight counts of first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse. ORS 163.684. He raises four assignments of error on appeal. We reject without discussion defendant’s first, second, and third assignments of error and write only to address his fourth assignment, in which he challenges the trial court’s imposition of a $60 “Mandatory State Amt” on Counts 1, 4, and 5. Defendant asserts, and the state concedes, that the trial court lacked authority to impose those $60 assessments. We agree, and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780, 781, 358 P3d 328, rev den, 358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state’s concession that the trial court erred in imposing “a $60 ‘mandatory state amount’ for each” count of conviction).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 P.3d 869, 279 Or. App. 441, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mryczko-orcclincoln-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack