From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Spence

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Apr 5, 2017
391 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)

Opinion

A160155

04-05-2017

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony Deloy SPENCE, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Linder, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAMDefendant appeals a judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence of intoxicants and reckless driving. Defendant was sentenced to an upward durational departure sentence of 22 months in prison and two years of post-prison supervision. Among other terms, the judgment also imposed $ 60 for each conviction as a "Mandatory State Amt." On appeal, defendant challenges the upward durational departure sentence, which we reject without discussion, and the imposition of a $ 60 mandatory state amount for each conviction.

As to the "Mandatory State Amt," defendant argues that the trial court erred because no statute authorized the trial court to impose those monetary awards against him. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing those amounts. We agree and accept the state's concession. See State v. Lindemann , 272 Or.App. 780, 358 P.3d 328, rev. den. , 358 Or. 248, 364 P.3d 1001 (2015) (accepting state concession that imposition of $ 60 mandatory state amount was in error because no statutory authority exists to impose that monetary award). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment that imposes the $ 60 mandatory state amount for each of defendant's convictions.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $ 60 "Mandatory State Amt" for each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Spence

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Apr 5, 2017
391 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)
Case details for

State v. Spence

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony Deloy SPENCE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Apr 5, 2017

Citations

391 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)
284 Or. App. 667