From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Chavez

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
May 21, 2014
263 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2014)

Summary

holding that the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees is plain error when the record is silent as to the defendant's ability to pay the fees ordered

Summary of this case from State v. Martinez-Tapia

Opinion

CR1101865 A151692.

2014-05-21

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Javier A. Hernandez CHAVEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Lindsey K. Detweiler, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Michael S. Shin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.



Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Lindsey K. Detweiler, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Michael S. Shin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before DUNCAN, Presiding Judge, and HASELTON, Chief Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to 300 months in prison. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay $1,600 in court-appointed attorney fees. On appeal, defendant challenges his convictions and the court's imposition of attorney fees. We reject defendant's challenge to his convictions without discussion and write only to address defendant's second assignment of error, which concerns the imposition of attorney fees.

In that second assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay court-appointed attorney fees when the record is silent as to whether he “is or may be able” to pay those costs of his defense. SeeORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”). He acknowledges that he did not preserve that claim of error but urges us to review and correct the error as an “error of law apparent on the record.” ORAP 5.45(1). We agree with defendant that the trial court plainly erred in imposing attorney fees on this record. See State v. Coverstone, 260 Or.App. 714, 716, 320 P.3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant's ability to pay the fees ordered).

We further conclude that, for reasons similar to those in Coverstone, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. First, the error is grave, in that defendant was ordered to pay a substantial sum, $1,600. Second, this is not a case in which the trial court could have made the necessary finding regarding ability to pay if the issue had been brought to its attention; the record contains no evidence of defendant's financial resources. And, third, defendant was sentenced to a lengthy prison term, 300 months, making it even more speculative that defendant would have the funds to pay the fees or acquire them in the future. See State v. Callentano, 263 Or.App. 190, 191–92, 326 P.3d 630 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct a similarly grave error under similar circumstances); cf. State v. Baco, 262 Or.App. 169, 171, 324 P.3d 491 (2014) (declining to exercise discretion to correct a plain error in imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the “error is not grave because $510 is not a substantial amount given that defendant's probationary sentence does not prevent him from working and that defendant agreed to the state's recommendation of attorney fees in the same amount for another charge sentenced at the same time”).

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


Summaries of

State v. Chavez

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
May 21, 2014
263 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2014)

holding that the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees is plain error when the record is silent as to the defendant's ability to pay the fees ordered

Summary of this case from State v. Martinez-Tapia

holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant's ability to pay the fees ordered

Summary of this case from State v. Callentano

exercising discretion to correct a similarly grave error under similar circumstances

Summary of this case from State v. Delgado-Juarez
Case details for

State v. Chavez

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Javier A. Hernandez CHAVEZ…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: May 21, 2014

Citations

263 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2014)
263 Or. App. 187

Citing Cases

State v. Frinell

We agree that the court erred in that regard, and that the error is plain. See, e.g. , State v. Chavez , 263…

State v. Below

See Coverstone, 260 Or.App. at 716, 320 P.3d 670.See also State v. Delgado–Juarez, 263 Or.App. 706, 707, 330…