State v. Starodubov

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Starodubov

442 P.3d 232, 297 Or. App. 407

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 1, 2019

DocketA165615

StatusPublished

This text of 442 P.3d 232 (State v. Starodubov) 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. Starodubov, 442 P.3d 232, 297 Or. App. 407 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*408Appealing a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of heroin, ORS 475.854, defendant assigns error to the trial court's (1) failure to supply a concurrence instruction to the jury and (2) imposition of $887 in court-appointed attorney fees in the absence of evidence that defendant had the statutorily required ability, or potential ability, to pay those fees. Neither assignment of error is preserved. We reject the first assignment of error on the ground that the trial court's error, if any, is not plain. As to the second assignment of error, the state concedes-correctly-that on this record, the trial court's imposition of attorney fees constituted plain error under our case law. For reasons similar to those stated in State v. Harris , 293 Or. App. 110, 111, 426 P.3d 252 (2018), we exercise our discretion to correct that error.

Portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

*408Appealing a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of heroin, ORS 475.854, defendant assigns error to the trial court's (1) failure to supply a concurrence instruction to the jury and (2) imposition of $887 in court-appointed attorney fees in the absence of evidence that defendant had the statutorily required ability, or potential ability, to pay those fees. Neither assignment of error is preserved. We reject the first assignment of error on the ground that the trial court's error, if any, is not plain. As to the second assignment of error, the state concedes-correctly-that on this record, the trial court's imposition of attorney fees constituted plain error under our case law. For reasons similar to those stated in State v. Harris , 293 Or. App. 110, 111, 426 P.3d 252 (2018), we exercise our discretion to correct that error.

Portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 P.3d 232, 297 Or. App. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-starodubov-orctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack