From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Pacho

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Oct 30, 2019
300 Or. App. 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)

Summary

correcting similar error

Summary of this case from State v. Addison

Opinion

A168412

10-30-2019

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Luis G. Solis PACHO, aka Luis Gerardo Solis, aka Luis Solis-Pacho, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

PER CURIAM In this criminal appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of a probation-violation fee that was not announced in open court. Defendant was serving an 18-month probation sentence, and the state alleged that he had failed to report to the supervising authority. At the show-cause hearing, defendant admitted the allegations. The trial court revoked probation but did not mention the imposition of any probation fine or fee. However, in the written judgment, the court imposed a $25 "probation violation assessment." The state concedes that the court erred by imposing a $25 probation fee for the first time in the judgment. See State v. Hillman , 293 Or. App. 231, 233, 426 P.3d 249 (2018) (trial court erred by imposing outside the defendant’s presence $25 probation-violation fee); State v. Zamno , 299 Or. App. 270, 272, 450 P.3d 57 (2019) (vacating erroneously imposed $25 probation-violation fee and remanding for resentencing). We agree and accept the state’s concession.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay a probation violation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Pacho

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Oct 30, 2019
300 Or. App. 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)

correcting similar error

Summary of this case from State v. Addison

correcting similar error

Summary of this case from State v. Postlethwait
Case details for

State v. Pacho

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LUIS G. SOLIS PACHO, aka Luis…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Oct 30, 2019

Citations

300 Or. App. 398 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)
450 P.3d 1033

Citing Cases

State v. Vierria

For those reasons, we conclude that the error is not harmless, that defendant should have had the option to…

State v. Robinson

We agree and accept the state's concession. See State v. Vierria , 307 Or. App. 46, ––– P.3d –––– (2020)…