Opinion
A180407
06-05-2024
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AARON ANTHONY SHOOK, aka Aaron A. Shook, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted April 24, 2024.
Coos County Circuit Court 22CR37074; Andrew E. Combs, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge.
PER CURIAM
In this criminal appeal, defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted of a felony and a misdemeanor. The trial court imposed the mandatory minimum fines of $200 and $100, respectively, under ORS 137.286. Defendant did not ask the court to waive the minimum fines or otherwise object to their imposition. On appeal, he argues that the court plainly erred by imposing those fines without giving "due regard" to his other financial obligations as required by ORS 161.645. He points to the lack of information in the record regarding his other financial obligations and argues that the court could not consider information that it did not have. He urges us to overrule State v. Wheeler, 268 Or.App. 729, 733, 344 P.3d 57 (2015), in which we concluded that a similar challenge was not susceptible to plain-error review, and look to the reasoning of the concurrence in State v. Shepherd, 302 Or.App. 118, 122, 459 P.3d 957, rev den, 366 Or. 552 (2020) (Aoyagi, J., concurring) ("Put simply, a court cannot consider information that it does not have.").
The state responds that ORS 161.645 is inapplicable where a court imposes the minimum fines under ORS 137.286. In the state's view, ORS 137.286 does not require consideration of a defendant's financial resources and obligations in imposing the mandatory minimum fines. Rather, those factors are relevant only if the court wants to exercise its discretionary authority to waive a minimum fine. See ORS 137.286(3). The state thus argues that ORS 161.645 does not apply to the imposition of mandatory fines under ORS 137.286 or, at a minimum, that the legal point is not "obvious" so as to make the alleged error plain. See State v. Seek, 304 Or.App. 641, 643, 468 P.3d 531, rev den, 366 Or. 827 (2020) (concluding that "it is not plain from the text of the statutes that ORS 161.645 applies to fines imposed under ORS 137.286"); State v. Shipley, 307 Or.App. 263, 265, 476 P.3d 971 (2020) (same).
We agree with the state that any error is not plain, particularly in light of Seek and Shipley, which defendant does not address. The trial court did not plainly err by imposing the minimum fines for defendant's convictions under ORS 137.286 without receiving information about defendant's other financial obligations.
Affirmed.