From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ross

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 15, 2005
113 P.3d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

CM0021223; A115701.

On appellant's petition for reconsideration filed April 15, 2005. Reconsideration allowed; disposition (199 Or App 1, 110 P3d 630) modified and adhered to as modified June 15, 2005.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Benton County.

Robert Gardner, Judge.

Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, and Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, and Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim and Schuman, Judges.


EDMONDS, P.J.

Reconsideration allowed; disposition modified to provide "Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed" and adhered to as modified.


Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our disposition of this case. State v. Ross, 199 Or App 1, 110 P3d 630 (2005). We allow the petition and modify our disposition.

In our previous opinion we held that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to pay the costs of his court-appointed attorney because it failed to make findings concerning his current ability to pay. Ross, 199 Or App at 14-15. We affirmed on all other assignments of error. Our disposition read: "Remanded for resentencing as to costs of court-appointed counsel; otherwise affirmed." In his petition, defendant argues that ORS 138.222(5) requires us to remand the entire case for resentencing. That statute provides, in part:

"If the appellate court determines that the sentencing court, in imposing a sentence in the case, committed an error that requires resentencing, the appellate court shall remand the entire case for resentencing. The sentencing court may impose a new sentence for any conviction in the remanded case."

The Supreme Court has held that the requirement in ORS 138.222(5) for resentencing on the entire case "applies to all errors for which review is authorized by ORS 138.222(3) and (4)," specifically including orders of restitution. State v. Edson, 329 Or 127, 130 n. 1, 138-39, 985 P2d 1253 (1999). We see no difference in this respect between a sentence to pay restitution and a sentence to pay court-appointed attorney fees.

Reconsideration allowed; disposition modified to provide "Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed" and adhered to as modified.


Summaries of

State v. Ross

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 15, 2005
113 P.3d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

State v. Ross

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JEFFREY SCOTT ROSS, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 15, 2005

Citations

113 P.3d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 2005)
113 P.3d 921

Citing Cases

State v. Ross

February 14, 2006. (A115701) ( 200 Or App 143). Petition for review…

State v. Flajole

efore indictment of the defendant, State v. Daniel, 109 Or App 680, 681 n 2, 820 P2d 901 (1991); costs…