State v. Villegas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: May 6, 2026
• Docket: A185885
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 369 May 6, 2026 307

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DWAYNE ANDREW VILLEGAS, aka Dwayne A. Villegas, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 24CN00542; A185885

Ann M. Lininger, Judge. Submitted March 13, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Bruce A. Myers, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Colm Moore, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* LAGESEN, C. J. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment deleting provision stating “[a]dditional assessments may be added”; otherwise affirmed.

______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). 308 State v. Villegas

LAGESEN, C. J. On appeal from a judgment of contempt, defendant challenges a provision, which appeared for the first time in the judgment, stating that “[a]dditional assessments may be added” to his financial obligation. The state concedes that it was error to include the “additional assessments” language in the judgment, and further agrees that under the circum- stances, resentencing is not necessary. State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, ___ P3d ___ (2026) (trial court lacked stat- utory authority to impose “other assessments” for the first time in the judgment). We accept the concession and remand for entry of an amended judgment. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment deleting provision stating “[a]dditional assessments may be added”; otherwise affirmed.