State v. Spence

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Spence

391 P.3d 1001, 284 Or. App. 667, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 440

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 5, 2017

DocketCF150100; A160155

StatusPublished

This text of 391 P.3d 1001 (State v. Spence) 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. Spence, 391 P.3d 1001, 284 Or. App. 667, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 440 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence of intoxicants and reckless driving. Defendant was sentenced to an upward durational departure sentence of 22 months in prison and two years of post-prison supervision. Among other terms, the judgment also imposed $60 for each conviction as a “Mandatory State Amt.” On appeal, defendant challenges the upward dura-tional departure sentence, which we reject without discussion, and the imposition of a $60 mandatory state amount for each conviction.

As to the “Mandatory State Amt,” defendant argues that the trial court erred because no statute authorized the trial court to impose those monetary awards against him. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing those amounts. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780, 358 P3d 328, rev den, 358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state concession that imposition of $60 mandatory state amount was in error because no statutory authority exists to impose that monetary award). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment that imposes the $60 mandatory state amount for each of defendant’s convictions.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” for each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence of intoxicants and reckless driving. Defendant was sentenced to an upward durational departure sentence of 22 months in prison and two years of post-prison supervision. Among other terms, the judgment also imposed $60 for each conviction as a “Mandatory State Amt.” On appeal, defendant challenges the upward dura-tional departure sentence, which we reject without discussion, and the imposition of a $60 mandatory state amount for each conviction.

As to the “Mandatory State Amt,” defendant argues that the trial court erred because no statute authorized the trial court to impose those monetary awards against him. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing those amounts. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780, 358 P3d 328, rev den, 358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state concession that imposition of $60 mandatory state amount was in error because no statutory authority exists to impose that monetary award). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment that imposes the $60 mandatory state amount for each of defendant’s convictions.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” for each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 P.3d 1001, 284 Or. App. 667, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-spence-orctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack