LAW.coLAW.co

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CRUCITA WHITE, Defendant-Appellant

Oregon Court of Appeals2015-02-19No. 12C46342; A154246
269 Or. App. 255344 P.3d 255

Summary

Holding. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part: the portion requiring defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees was reversed, while the remainder of the judgment, including the fine and other fees, was affirmed.

Crucita White was convicted of driving under the influence after a bench trial and sentenced to 18 months of bench probation along with various fines and fees totaling over $1,600. White appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing a $1,000 fine, a $227 DUII conviction fee, and a $100 bench probation fee without announcing them in open court, and by imposing court-appointed attorney fees without considering her ability to pay.

The appellate court found that the fine and fees White challenged were properly imposed because they were part of the standard conditions recommended by the state at sentencing and were mentioned as "other obligations" that the trial court announced orally during the hearing. However, the court agreed with the state's own concession that the court-appointed attorney fees were imposed in error, as they were neither recommended by the state nor announced orally by the trial court at sentencing.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether fines and fees must be announced in open court to be properly imposed at sentencing
  • Whether standard DUII conditions and fees are sufficiently imposed if recommended by the prosecution and referenced generally in the oral pronouncement of sentence
  • Whether court-appointed attorney fees can be imposed without being orally announced at sentencing

Procedural posture

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for driving under the influence of intoxicants following a bench trial.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction, after a bench trial, of driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010 (Count 2). Defendant was sentenced to 18 months of bench probation and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, a $100 bench probation fee, a $227 DUII conviction fee, and $310 in court-appointed attorney fees. Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in ordering her to pay the fine and fees because the trial court did not announce them in open court. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in ordering her to pay court-appointed attorney fees without considering her ability to pay. Defendant acknowledges that she did not preserve her claims of error, but contends that, because she did not have an opportunity to object, the preservation doctrine does not apply.

At the sentencing hearing, the state sought 18 months of bench probation with “all of the standard DUII conditions including treatment and the Victim Impact Panel” and “[a] 11 the other general conditions that are normally asked for ***. There is a standard $1,000 fine that goes with this and a required $227 DUII assessment.” The state also sought restitution, 48-hours jail time, and another fine for refusal to take a breath test. After a discussion in which the trial court denied restitution and imposed community service instead of jail time, the court stated, “I am not going to impose any fine on the breath test. I’m just going to discharge that and post the other obligations that have been outlined.” Both parties then told the court that there was nothing else that needed to be covered.

At the hearing, the state expressly recommended the imposition of the $1,000 fine and the $227 DUII conviction fee. And, as part of the recommended 18-month bench probation, which the court imposed, the state recommended the standard DUII conditions and all other general conditions that go with such a sentence. One of those “general conditions” is the required payment of a $100 bench probation supervision fee. ORS 137.540(l)(a); ORS 137.540(7). Thus, the fine, DUII fee, and probation fee were part of “the other obligations that have been outlined” that the trial court imposed orally at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s assignments of error with respect to those terms because they were part of the orally pronounced sentence.

However, we agree with and accept the state’s concession that we should correct the trial court’s error in imposing the court-appointed attorney fees. That fee was not recommended by the state at the hearing, and the trial court did not impose that fee orally at the hearing. See State v. Johnson, 260 Or App 176, 177, 316 P3d 432 (2013) (accepting state’s concession that trial court’s failure to impose court-appointed attorney fees orally at sentencing was plain error that should be corrected).

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

The trial court dismissed Counts 1 and 3.