PER CURIAM.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge.

PER CURIAM Following a conditional guilty plea, defendant was convicted of misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicants. Defendant appeals the judgment, raising two assignments of error. We reject defendant’s first assignment of error without discussion. In his second assignment, defendant argues that the trial court erred when, after indicating orally at defendant’s sentencing hearing that it intended to impose a $6,250 fine, it entered a judgment imposing a fine in the amount of $6,505. Defendant acknowledges that the $255 difference may have represented a DUII conviction fee under ORS 813.020(1)(a) and ORS 813.030, but argues that the trial court could not impose that fee outside his presence and that preservation was not required in these circumstances. The state concedes the error and agrees that preservation is not required. We agree and accept the state’s concession. State v. Tison , 292 Or. App. 369, 372, 374, 424 P.3d 823, rev. den. , 363 Or. 744, 430 P.3d 567 (2018) (concluding that the trial court erred when it imposed monetary obligations in the judgment that exceeded the amount it ordered orally in court and that preservation was not required); State v. Zamno , 299 Or. App. 270, 271, 450 P.3d 57 (2019) (same).

The remaining issue is the proper remedy. Defendant asks us to reverse that portion of the judgment imposing the additional $255 fine. The state argues that the proper remedy is to remand for resentencing. We agree with the state.

ORS 138.257(4)(a)(B) controls the disposition of this case. It provides that the appellate court shall remand "[i]f the appellate court determines that the trial court, in imposing or failing to impose a sentence in the case, committed an error that requires resentencing." In Zamno , 299 Or. App. at 271-72, 450 P.3d 57, we concluded that the court’s imposition of a $260 fine outside of the defendant’s presence was such an error that required resentencing. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the judgment imposing a $6,505 DUII fine, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm. Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay a $6,505 DUII fine vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.