From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Quade

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Sep 26, 2012
287 P.3d 1278 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)

Summary

correcting as plain error the trial court's entry of misdemeanor convictions for contempt

Summary of this case from State v. Buchanan

Opinion

086127 A146266.

2012-09-26

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Jason Charles QUADE, Defendant–Appellant.

Columbia County Circuit Court. Steven B. Reed, Judge. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Pamela J. Walsh, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Columbia County Circuit Court.
Steven B. Reed, Judge.


Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Pamela J. Walsh, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and HASELTON, Chief Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pleaded guilty on four counts of contempt and argues on appeal that the trial court plainly erred in imposing six-month sentences on two of the counts and also erred in making the sentences on each count consecutive. He also asserts that the court erred in entering contempt convictions, and in imposing unitary assessments and fees. The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred by entering misdemeanor convictions on the counts of contempt. The state also concedes that, because the contempt counts were not based on the commission of a crime or violation, the trial court plainly erred by imposing unitary assessments. SeeORAP 5.45; Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 382, 823 P.2d 956 (1991) (court has discretion to review unpreserved error of law apparent on the face of the record).

We agree and accept the state's concessions. See State v. Reynolds, 239 Or.App. 313, 315–16, 243 P.3d 496 (2010) (accepting state concession that criminal conviction for contempt of court was error); ORS 137.290(1) (2009) (providing for unitary assessments in “cases of conviction for the commission of a crime or violation”). Furthermore, in light of the interests of the parties and the ends of justice in this case, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. See Ailes, 312 Or. at 382, 823 P.2d 956 n6 (providing that the “gravity of the error” and the “competing interests of the parties” are factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise discretion to consider plain error). Accordingly, we must reverse and remand, which obviates the need to address defendant's other assignments of error, which the court may address on remand.

Reversed and remanded for entry at judgment consistent with this opinion.


Summaries of

State v. Quade

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Sep 26, 2012
287 P.3d 1278 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)

correcting as plain error the trial court's entry of misdemeanor convictions for contempt

Summary of this case from State v. Buchanan

exercising discretion to correct plain error in imposing unitary assessment based on “the interests of the parties and the ends of justice”

Summary of this case from State v. Rowling

exercising discretion to correct plain error in imposing unitary assessment based on "the interests of the parties and the ends of justice"

Summary of this case from S.K.C. v. Pitts

correcting as plain error the trial court's entry of misdemeanor convictions for contempt

Summary of this case from State v. Gostevskyh
Case details for

State v. Quade

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Jason Charles QUADE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Sep 26, 2012

Citations

287 P.3d 1278 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)
252 Or. App. 577

Citing Cases

S.K.C. v. Pitts

We agree and accept the state's concession. See State v. Quade, 252 Or App 577, 287 P3d 1278 (2012) (court…

State v. Rowling

Furthermore, in light of the interests of the parties and the ends of justice in this case, we conclude that…