State v. Naylor

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Naylor

300 P.3d 307, 256 Or. App. 478, 2013 WL 1777097, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 470

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 24, 2013

Docket10C40413; A149293

StatusPublished

This text of 300 P.3d 307 (State v. Naylor) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Naylor, 300 P.3d 307, 256 Or. App. 478, 2013 WL 1777097, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 470 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of second-degree theft. ORS 164.045. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and in imposing $87.33 of restitution, a $67 unitary assessment, a $35 surcharge, and $390 in attorney fees. We reject without published discussion all of defendant’s contentions except for his argument that the trial court erred in imposing attorney fees. With respect to that assertion, the state concedes that “the trial court erred by imposing $390 in attorney’s fees in the judgment when the record does not support defendant’s ability to pay those fees.” We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or App 630, 284 P3d 573 (2012) (holding that it is error to impose attorney fees where the record does not support the defendant’s ability to pay those fees).

Attorney fee assessment reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of second-degree theft. ORS 164.045. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and in imposing $87.33 of restitution, a $67 unitary assessment, a $35 surcharge, and $390 in attorney fees. We reject without published discussion all of defendant’s contentions except for his argument that the trial court erred in imposing attorney fees. With respect to that assertion, the state concedes that “the trial court erred by imposing $390 in attorney’s fees in the judgment when the record does not support defendant’s ability to pay those fees.” We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or App 630, 284 P3d 573 (2012) (holding that it is error to impose attorney fees where the record does not support the defendant’s ability to pay those fees).

Attorney fee assessment reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 P.3d 307, 256 Or. App. 478, 2013 WL 1777097, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-naylor-orctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack