Opinion
A180388
04-24-2024
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEBORAH LYNN MARTINA, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Nora Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed 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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 March 8, 2024.
Lane County Circuit Court 22CR13742; A180388 R. Curtis Conover, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Nora Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, C. J., and Egan, J.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
EGAN, J.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010(4). On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's imposition of a special condition of probation that was included in the judgment but not announced in open court. The state concedes the error. We agree with and accept the state's concession. We remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm.
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.
"We review sentencing decisions for legal error." State v. Tison, 292 Or.App. 369, 372, 424 P.3d 823, rev den, 363 Or. 744 (2018). "A criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court." State v. Priester, 325 Or.App. 574, 581, 530 P.3d 118, rev den, 371 Or. 332 (2023). A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing. State v. Bates, 315 Or.App. 402, 404, 500 P.3d 746 (2021).
Here, the judgement of conviction contains a special condition of probation requiring that defendant must not be "in any place where the principal purpose is the sale or serving of alcohol." The trial court erred by imposing that special condition of probation because it was not announced in open court at the sentencing hearing. Priester, 325 Or.App. at 581. Therefore, we remand for resentencing.
Defendant also argues that that special condition of probation is not reasonably related to her crime because she was charged with, and convicted of, a controlled substance DUII. However, because we remand for resentencing, we need not reach that argument. See State v. Reed-Hack, 313 Or.App. 728, 729-30, 495 P.3d 196, rev den, 369 Or. 69 (2021) (declining to reach the defendant's argument that a condition of probation was not reasonably related to her crimes of conviction because "it may be raised on remand for the trial court to consider in the first instance").
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.