State v. Snyder

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Snyder

422 P.3d 435, 292 Or. App. 880

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 18, 2018

DocketA162201

StatusPublished

This text of 422 P.3d 435 (State v. Snyder) 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. Snyder, 422 P.3d 435, 292 Or. App. 880 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*881After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of attempt to elude police with a vehicle, interfering with a peace officer, and resisting arrest, and the court imposed a "Mandatory State Amt" of $60 on each conviction as part of defendant's sentence. On appeal, he argues-and the state concedes-that the trial court did not have authority to impose those separate assessments and that they should be reversed. We agree with the parties and accept the state's concession. See State v. Pranzetti , 269 Or. App. 410, 344 P.3d 547 (2015) (reversing portion of judgment imposing $60 "mandatory state amt." where no statute authorized that assessment).

In a supplemental pro se brief, defendant also argues that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to prove, as an affirmative defense, that he was unable to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law because of a mental disorder. We reject that argument without discussion.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay "Mandatory State Amt" on each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

*881After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of attempt to elude police with a vehicle, interfering with a peace officer, and resisting arrest, and the court imposed a "Mandatory State Amt" of $60 on each conviction as part of defendant's sentence. On appeal, he argues-and the state concedes-that the trial court did not have authority to impose those separate assessments and that they should be reversed. We agree with the parties and accept the state's concession. See State v. Pranzetti , 269 Or. App. 410, 344 P.3d 547 (2015) (reversing portion of judgment imposing $60 "mandatory state amt." where no statute authorized that assessment).

In a supplemental pro se brief, defendant also argues that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to prove, as an affirmative defense, that he was unable to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law because of a mental disorder. We reject that argument without discussion.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay "Mandatory State Amt" on each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 P.3d 435, 292 Or. App. 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-snyder-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack