Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Gammon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 23, 2014

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAVID WAGNER GAMMON, Defendant-Appellant

Submitted June 24, 2014

Washington County Circuit Court. C110918CR. Thomas W. Kohl, Judge.

Portion of judgment imposing DUII-conviction fee reversed and remanded for entry of a fee in the amount of $130; otherwise affirmed.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Lindsey Burrows, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the opening brief for appellant.

David Gammon filed a supplemental brief, Pro se.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Karla H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and De Muniz, Senior Judge.

OPINION

[264 Or.App. 421] PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer lacked probable cause to stop defendant and that the trial court plainly erred when it imposed a DUII fee of $255 because, under ORS 813.030 (2009), the DUII-conviction fee could not exceed $130.[1] Defendant also raises two additional assignments of error in a pro se supplemental brief. We write only to address defendant's contention concerning the DUII fee, and reject his remaining assignments of error without discussion.

With respect to the DUII fee, the state " concedes that the trial court committed plain error in assessing a DUII conviction fee of $255" and that the judgment must, therefore, be remanded. We agree. Under ORS 813.030, the court may require a defendant convicted of DUII to pay a fee " in the amount of $130." Accordingly, the court erred in imposing a fee in excess of that amount. See State v. Wilson, 245 Or.App. 365, 263 P.3d 1107 (2011) (trial court erred in imposing DUII-conviction fee in excess of the amount allowed under the pertinent statutes). Furthermore, for the reasons set

Page 348

forth in State v. Simkins, 263 Or. App 459, 330 P.3d 1235, (2014), we conclude it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Portion of judgment imposing DUII-conviction fee reversed and remanded for entry of a fee in the amount of $130; otherwise affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.