State v. Caldwell

Full title: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRENT MICHAEL CALDWELL…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Nov 2, 2016

383 P.3d 1003 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)

282 Or. App. 68

Opinion

A159303

11-02-2016

State of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Brent Michael Caldwell, Defendant–Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

PER CURIAMDefendant was convicted of felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (Count 1) and driving while suspended or revoked (Count 2). On Count 1, the court sentenced defendant to eight months in jail and two years of post-prison supervision, revoked defendant's driver's license, and imposed a $ 2,000 fine; on Count 2, the court imposed an additional $ 2,000 fine. The court also ordered defendant to pay $ 200 in court-appointed attorney fees.

On appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the court's imposition of court-appointed attorney fees. We reject without discussion defendant's assignments of error regarding the motion to suppress. However, we agree with defendant—and the state's concession—that the trial court plainly erred by imposing court-appointed attorney fees when the record is silent regarding defendant's ability to pay those fees. We exercise our discretion to correct that error, for reasons similar to those expressed in State v. Ramirez–Hernandez , 264 Or.App. 346, 349, 332 P.3d 338 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $ 400 in court-appointed attorney fees because the amount was “substantial” in light of defendant's circumstances).

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