State v. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Robinson

475 P.3d 474, 307 Or. App. 409

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 28, 2020

DocketA170304

StatusPublished

This text of 475 P.3d 474 (State v. Robinson) 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. Robinson, 475 P.3d 474, 307 Or. App. 409 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted September 29; portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $25 probation violation fee vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed October 28, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JERRY LEE ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 17CR23777; A170304 475 P3d 474

Thomas McHill, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $25 pro- bation violation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 410 State v. Robinson

PER CURIAM Defendant, who was serving probation as a result of his conviction for second-degree child neglect, appeals a judg- ment revoking his probation. He argues that the trial court erred in imposing a $25 probation-violation fee that was not announced in open court and in failing to allow defendant to represent himself during the probation-violation proceed- ings. We reject without discussion defendant’s argument concerning self-representation. As to defendant’s argument that the trial court erred when it imposed a $25 probation- violation fee that was not announced in open court, the state concedes that the court erred by imposing the fee for the first time in the judgment. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Vierria, 307 Or App 46, 476 P3d 506 (2020) (correcting similar error); State v. Pacho, 300 Or App 398, 450 P3d 1033 (2019) (same). Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $25 probation-violation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

Submitted September 29; portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $25 probation violation fee vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed October 28, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JERRY LEE ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 17CR23777; A170304 475 P3d 474

Thomas McHill, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $25 pro- bation violation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 410 State v. Robinson

PER CURIAM Defendant, who was serving probation as a result of his conviction for second-degree child neglect, appeals a judg- ment revoking his probation. He argues that the trial court erred in imposing a $25 probation-violation fee that was not announced in open court and in failing to allow defendant to represent himself during the probation-violation proceed- ings. We reject without discussion defendant’s argument concerning self-representation. As to defendant’s argument that the trial court erred when it imposed a $25 probation- violation fee that was not announced in open court, the state concedes that the court erred by imposing the fee for the first time in the judgment. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Vierria, 307 Or App 46, 476 P3d 506 (2020) (correcting similar error); State v. Pacho, 300 Or App 398, 450 P3d 1033 (2019) (same). Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $25 probation-violation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 P.3d 474, 307 Or. App. 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robinson-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack