State v. Owen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Owen

422 P.3d 426, 293 Or. App. 229

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 1, 2018

DocketA163390

StatusPublished

This text of 422 P.3d 426 (State v. Owen) 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. Owen, 422 P.3d 426, 293 Or. App. 229 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*230Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for attempt to commit a Class A misdemeanor. We reject defendant's first assignment of error without discussion. In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a $560 fine in the written judgment, where the court had announced at sentencing that it was imposing only a $500 fine. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing a $560 fine in the judgment and requests that we remand for the court to enter a fine of $500. We agree with and accept the state's concession regarding the fine and, accordingly, reverse the imposition of the fine and remand for the court to impose the $500 fine announced at sentencing. See State v. Hurst , 282 Or. App. 915, 916, 385 P.3d 1285 (2016) (accepting state concession that the trial court erred in imposing a fine and fee in the judgment on misdemeanor convictions without first announcing them at sentencing and reversing those portions of the judgment).

Portion of judgment imposing $560 fine reversed and remanded for entry of a fine in the amount of $500; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

*230Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for attempt to commit a Class A misdemeanor. We reject defendant's first assignment of error without discussion. In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a $560 fine in the written judgment, where the court had announced at sentencing that it was imposing only a $500 fine. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing a $560 fine in the judgment and requests that we remand for the court to enter a fine of $500. We agree with and accept the state's concession regarding the fine and, accordingly, reverse the imposition of the fine and remand for the court to impose the $500 fine announced at sentencing. See State v. Hurst , 282 Or. App. 915, 916, 385 P.3d 1285 (2016) (accepting state concession that the trial court erred in imposing a fine and fee in the judgment on misdemeanor convictions without first announcing them at sentencing and reversing those portions of the judgment).

Portion of judgment imposing $560 fine reversed and remanded for entry of a fine in the amount of $500; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 P.3d 426, 293 Or. App. 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-owen-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack