State v. Price

487 P.3d 409, 312 Or. App. 167

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: June 3, 2021
• Docket: A167517
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted January 14, 2020; remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed June 3, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CATHERINE ANNE PRICE, Defendant-Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 17CR42272; A167517 487 P3d 409

Ladd J. Wiles, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 168 State v. Price

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010(4), contending that the trial court erroneously terminated diversion and entered judgment pursuant to his plea. For the reasons stated in State v. Merrill, 311 Or App 487, 492 P3d 722 (2021), ORS 138.105(5) bars review of that conten- tion. Defendant also assigns error to the imposition of a fine $255 in excess of what the court announced at sentencing and to the imposition of two special conditions of probation. The state correctly concedes the errors. See State v. Lee, 303 Or App 477, 478, 461 P3d 1043 (2020) (vacating fine and remanding for resentencing where court erred in imposing a greater DUII fine than announced at sentencing); State v. Bowden, 292 Or App 815, 818-19, 425 P3d 475 (2018) (“The sentencing court does not have the discretion to impose a probation condition that runs counter to ORS 137.540(1)(b) and ORS 137.542.”). Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.