From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Sankey

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Jan 24, 2018
289 Or. App. 846 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)

Summary

reversing $255 DUII conviction fee and $100 bench probation fee where record was clear that the court intended to waive them

Summary of this case from State v. Runyon

Opinion

A162569

01-24-2018

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David Allen SANKEY, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, and Anna Melichar, Deputy Public Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

PER CURIAMDefendant appeals a judgment of conviction for second-degree criminal mischief, asserting in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred by not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal. He also challenges, in his second and third assignments of error, the trial court's imposition of two fines, a $100 bench probation fee and a $255 "DUII conviction fee," on the basis that the court imposed those financial penalties outside his presence. We reject defendant's first assignment of error without written discussion. As for his second and third assignments, the state acknowledges that the court declared at sentencing that it would waive all fees, but in the written judgment it imposed the bench probation fee and the "DUII conviction fee." The state concedes that it was error to impose those financial penalties outside the presence of defendant. We agree, accept the state's concession, and reverse the portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay the $100 bench probation fee and the $255 "DUII conviction fee." See State v. White , 269 Or. App. 255, 257, 344 P.3d 510, rev. den. , 357 Or. 300, 353 P.3d 595 (2015) (accepting state concession that trial court's failure to impose court-appointed attorney fees orally at the sentencing hearing was error).

We also note that defendant was not convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants; thus the court lacked the authority to impose the "DUII conviction fee." State v. Williams , 280 Or. App. 631, 632, 380 P.3d 1225, rev. den. , 360 Or 604, 385 P.3d 88 (2016).
--------

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $100 bench probation fee and $255 "DUII conviction fee" reversed; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Sankey

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Jan 24, 2018
289 Or. App. 846 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)

reversing $255 DUII conviction fee and $100 bench probation fee where record was clear that the court intended to waive them

Summary of this case from State v. Runyon

reversing $255 DUII conviction fee and $100 bench probation fee where record was clear that the court intended to waive them

Summary of this case from State v. Sims

reversing portion of a judgment imposing a $255 DUII conviction fee and a $100 bench probation fee without remanding for resentencing when the trial court had "declared" that it would "waive all fees"

Summary of this case from State v. Tison

accepting the state's concession and reversing financial penalties that were imposed for the first time in the judgment where the record was clear that the court intended to waive them

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

State v. Sankey

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David Allen SANKEY…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Jan 24, 2018

Citations

289 Or. App. 846 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)
409 P.3d 73

Citing Cases

State v. Tison

Id. at 617, 292 P.3d 611. If we conclude that reversal and remand for entry of corrected judgments, rather…

State v. Stevens

As to defendant's second and third assignments of error, we accept the state's concession that the trial…