State v. Lovingier

Full title: State of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Trajan Lewallen Lovingier…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Aug 31, 2016

380 P.3d 326 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)

380 P.3d 326

Opinion

A160184

08-31-2016

State of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Trajan Lewallen Lovingier, Defendant–Appellant.

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 Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

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 Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.

PER CURIAMDefendant appeals a judgment of conviction for third-degree theft. ORS 164.043. He assigns error to the trial court's imposition, in the judgment, of a $60 “Mandatory State Amt.” Defendant asserts that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose that assessment. The state concedes that the trial court lacked authority to impose the $60 assessment and that that portion of the judgment should be reversed. We agree, and accept the state's concession. See State v. Nutt , 274 Or.App. 217, 220–21, 360 P.3d 636 (2015), rev. den. , 358 Or. 551, 368 P.3d 26 (2016) (discussing trial court's lack of authority to impose $60 “Mandatory State Amt” and reversing portion of judgment requiring the defendant to pay that assessment).

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 “Mandatory State Amt” reversed; otherwise affirmed.