From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Montgomery

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 27, 1991
806 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

89CR0771; CA A62371

Argued and submitted December 21, 1990.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing February 27, 1991

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coos County, Richard L. Barron, Judge.

Mary M. Reese, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Vera Langer, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

RIGGS, J.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.


Defendant was convicted of two counts of theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. At sentencing, the trial court ordered him to pay costs, attorney fees and restitution and to sell his car to satisfy those obligations. He did not object to the court's order. We affirm the conviction but remand for resentencing.

Defendant argues that there is no statutory authority for the trial court to require him to sell assets to meet the financial obligations imposed by the judgment. The state concedes that the trial court erred in ordering defendant to sell his car, because the car had not been used in any manner related to the offense for which he was convicted. See State v. Gammond, 75 Or. App. 27, 29, 704 P.2d 1154 (1985). However, it argues that we should not consider defendant's contentions on appeal, because he failed to preserve the error. State v. Carpenter, 101 Or. App. 489, 791 P.2d 145, rev den 310 Or. 393 (1990). Defendant responds that we can consider the error, because the trial court's lack of authority to make the order is apparent on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45(2); State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347, 800 P.2d 259 (1990); State v. Wills, 93 Or. App. 322, 323, 761 P.2d 1365 (1988), rev den 307 Or. 611 (1989); State v. Braughton, 28 Or. App. 891, 893, 561 P.2d 1040 (1977).

We agree that the trial court had no authority to order defendant to sell his car. See State v. Gammond, supra. That error is apparent on the face of the record and needs to be corrected. State v. Brown, supra. The state agrees that, if we reach the issue, the case should be remanded for resentencing.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.


Summaries of

State v. Montgomery

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 27, 1991
806 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

State v. Montgomery

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. VINCENT ADAM MONTGOMERY, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 27, 1991

Citations

806 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)
806 P.2d 183

Citing Cases

Cheryl Wilcox Property Management v. Appel

However, the trial court's lack of authority to enter a judgment for money damages in the absence of any…

State v. Orsi

The argument that the court's reasons for departure are not "substantial and compelling" is not an error of…