Defendant, who was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, asserts on appeal that the trial court plainly erred in imposing a $2,000 fine, mistakenly believing the fine was mandatory rather than discretionary under the circumstances of this case. The state concedes the error. As explained below, we agree, accept the concession, and exercise discretion to correct the error.
Under ORS 813.010(6), a court must impose, “[f]or a persons third or subsequent [DUII] conviction, a minimum [fine] of $2,000 if the person is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.” In the present case, the court concluded the fine was mandatory, although it sentenced defendant to jail as a condition of probation. In State v. Frier, 264 Or. App. 541, 546-47, 333 P.3d 1093 (2014), we concluded that a “term of imprisonment” under that statute included jail time imposed as a condition of probation. Accordingly, the trial courts conclusion that a $2,000 fine was mandatory in this case was incorrect. As the state acknowledges, we have corrected similar errors as plain error in the past. See, e.g., State v. Paulsen, 309 Or. App. 414, 481 P.3d 1034 (2021); State v. Loudermilk, 288 Or. App. 88, 405 P.3d 195 (2017). For the reasons set forth in Loudermilk, we exercise discretion to correct the error.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
PER CURIAM