State v. Nichols

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Nichols

683 P.2d 565, 68 Or. App. 922, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3670

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 27, 1984

Docket81-30770; CA A30145

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 683 P.2d 565 (State v. Nichols) 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. Nichols, 683 P.2d 565, 68 Or. App. 922, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3670 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals an order that required that $45 be withheld from his security deposit to apply toward paying the fees of his court-appointed attorney. Defendant had been arrested for driving while suspended. ORS 487.560. The court had determined that defendant was “without means to obtain counsel” and had appointed counsel to represent him. ORS 135.045; 135.050. At trial, on the state’s motion, the court dismissed the charge. The court then made the challenged order. See ORS 135.265(2). The court erred when it made the order without first determining, as required by ORS 135.055(6), that defendant was able to pay. Defendant’s son had posted the security deposit. A defendant is not necessarily able to pay attorney fees simply because he, or a friend or relative on his behalf, has posted a security deposit.

On remand the court and parties will need to consider the memorandum of Chief Justice Peterson to all circuit and district court judges dated May 15, 1984, relating to the judgment dated May 14, 1984, by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, in Fitch v. Belshaw, 581 F Supp 273 (DC Or 1984), that ordered termination of collection of attorney fees from acquitted persons pursuant to ORS 135.055(6).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals an order that required that $45 be withheld from his security deposit to apply toward paying the fees of his court-appointed attorney. Defendant had been arrested for driving while suspended. ORS 487.560. The court had determined that defendant was “without means to obtain counsel” and had appointed counsel to represent him. ORS 135.045; 135.050. At trial, on the state’s motion, the court dismissed the charge. The court then made the challenged order. See ORS 135.265(2). The court erred when it made the order without first determining, as required by ORS 135.055(6), that defendant was able to pay. Defendant’s son had posted the security deposit. A defendant is not necessarily able to pay attorney fees simply because he, or a friend or relative on his behalf, has posted a security deposit.

On remand the court and parties will need to consider the memorandum of Chief Justice Peterson to all circuit and district court judges dated May 15, 1984, relating to the judgment dated May 14, 1984, by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, in Fitch v. Belshaw, 581 F Supp 273 (DC Or 1984), that ordered termination of collection of attorney fees from acquitted persons pursuant to ORS 135.055(6).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 P.2d 565, 68 Or. App. 922, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nichols-orctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack