From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Surratt

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 4, 1994
874 P.2d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

C91-1921CR; CA A76258

Submitted on record and briefs December 23, 1993.

Affirmed May 4, 1994.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County, Alan C. Bonebrake, Judge.

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Irene B. Taylor, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and R. Victoria Beyerinck, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

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


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Defendant appeals from a judgment requiring him to reimburse the state for court-appointed attorney fees. ORS 161.665(1). He assigns as error the fact that the amount of fees was determined outside his presence after the sentencing hearing was over. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court said that it was adopting the presentence report's recommendation that defendant pay the fees as a condition of post-prison supervision. The state concedes that the trial court erred when it set the amount of attorney fees outside defendant's presence. See ORS 137.030; see also State v. Stock, 56 Or. App. 857, 643 P.2d 877 (1982). Nonetheless, the state argues that, because defendant did not object during the hearing to the court's failure to set a specific amount of attorney fees, we should decline to consider the error. ORAP 5.45(2). We agree. Defendant was present at the sentencing hearing and was aware of the court's intentions. Had he wished a determination of the amount of fees, he could have objected at that time. His silence deprived the trial court of the opportunity to correct any error. Under the circumstances, we decline to consider defendant's argument. See State v. Lillie, 124 Or. App. 49, 52, 860 P.2d 895 (1993); State v. Daniel, 115 Or. App. 177, 836 P.2d 1366 (1992).

Although the facts in this case are not dissimilar from those in State v. Stock, supra, our approach for addressing unpreserved errors has changed since we decided that case. See State v. Farmer, 317 Or. 220, 224, 856 P.2d 623 (1993); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 382, 823 P.2d 956 (1991).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Surratt

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 4, 1994
874 P.2d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

State v. Surratt

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. BOBBY LEON SURRATT, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 4, 1994

Citations

874 P.2d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)
874 P.2d 106