State v. Terhune

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Terhune

389 P.3d 411, 283 Or. App. 905, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 244

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 23, 2017

Docket15CR15155; A160296

StatusPublished

This text of 389 P.3d 411 (State v. Terhune) 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. Terhune, 389 P.3d 411, 283 Or. App. 905, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault, and the trial court sentenced defendant to 180 days in jail. At sentencing, the court did not address court-appointed attorney fees or defendant’s ability to pay them, but the judgment imposed an obligation on defendant to pay $406 in court-appointed attorney fees. On appeal, defendant argues—and the state concedes—that defendant had no practical ability to object to the imposition of the attorney fees, so preservation principles do not apply; the state further concedes that the trial court’s imposition of the fees was erroneous, because there is no evidence that he is or may be able to pay them. We agree with and accept the state’s concessions, and we reverse the imposition of attorney fees.

Portion of 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

Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault, and the trial court sentenced defendant to 180 days in jail. At sentencing, the court did not address court-appointed attorney fees or defendant’s ability to pay them, but the judgment imposed an obligation on defendant to pay $406 in court-appointed attorney fees. On appeal, defendant argues—and the state concedes—that defendant had no practical ability to object to the imposition of the attorney fees, so preservation principles do not apply; the state further concedes that the trial court’s imposition of the fees was erroneous, because there is no evidence that he is or may be able to pay them. We agree with and accept the state’s concessions, and we reverse the imposition of attorney fees.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 P.3d 411, 283 Or. App. 905, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-terhune-orctapp-2017.