From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Wills

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 4, 1989
761 P.2d 1365 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

85-03-31133; CA A43558

Argued and submitted March 25, 1989

Convictions affirmed and remanded for resentencing with instructions October 5, reconsideration denied December 23, 1988 Petition for review denied April 4, 1989 ( 307 Or. 611)

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Robert P. Jones, Judge.

Clint A. Lonergan, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Richard L. Lonergan, Portland.

Leslie Jo Westphal, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Rossman, Judge.


PER CURIAM

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing with instructions to vacate forfeiture.


Defendant was convicted of rape I, sodomy I and sexual abuse I. ORS 163.375; ORS 163.405; ORS 163.425. We affirm the convictions but remand with instructions to vacate the portion of the judgment purporting to impose a forfeiture of his assets.

In addition to imposing a compensatory fine, see ORS 137.101, the court ordered that defendant forfeit "any assets" to pay it. Defendant did not object to either the fine or the forfeiture. The statute authorizes a compensatory fine. Without an objection having been made to the fine, there is nothing to review. However, an objection is not required in order to challenge a sentence which exceeds the court's authority, as did the forefeiture. State v. Braughton, 28 Or. App. 891, 893, 561 P.2d 1040 (1977).

ORS 161.045 (4) provides:

"No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law."

We have found no statute authorizing forfeiture of property under the circumstances, and neither party has directed our attention to one. The trial court had no forfeiture authority, and that portion of the order cannot stand. See State v. Gammond, 75 Or. App. 27, 29, 704 P.2d 1154 (1985).

Defendant's other assignment of error is without merit.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing with instructions to vacate the forfeiture.


Summaries of

State v. Wills

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 4, 1989
761 P.2d 1365 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

State v. Wills

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. EDWARD ALAN WILLS, JR., Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 4, 1989

Citations

761 P.2d 1365 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
761 P.2d 1365

Citing Cases

State v. Olson

We are not persuaded that ORS 137.540(2) expressly provides for forfeiture in these circumstances, and we…

State v. New

Although defendant did not object to the order in the trial court, we exercise our discretion to consider the…