Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State v. Velasquez-Orozco

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 1, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SELVYN JULIAN VELASQUEZ-OROZCO, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted April 26, 2017

         Washington County Circuit Court C141144CR Eric Butterfeld, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Haselton, Senior Judge.

          PER CURIAM.

         Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay extradition costs reversed; otherwise affrmed.

         [285 Or.App. 882] Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree sodomy, ORS 163.405, three counts of second-degree sodomy, ORS 163.395, and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, raising two assignments of error. We reject without discussion defendant's second assignment of error, and write to address his first assignment of error. In that assignment, defendant, who was sentenced to a total of 325 months in prison, challenges the trial court's imposition of $2, 030 in extradition costs.[1]He asserts that the court failed to make a finding regarding his ability to pay those costs and that, in any event, the record would not support a finding that he is or may be able to pay them. See ORS 161.665(4) ("The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them."); State v. Pendersrapht. 251 Or.App. 630, 633, 284 P.3d 573 (2012) (a court lacks authority to require a defendant to pay costs unless it has determined that the defendant is or may be able to pay them); see also State v. Kanuch, 231 Or.App. 20, 24, 217 P.3d 1082 (2009) (the state "bears the burden of persuasion and the obligation to make a record" regarding a defendant's ability to pay costs). Although the asserted error in unpreserved, defendant urges us to review and correct it as plain error. See ORAP 5.45(1).

         We agree with defendant that the record does not show that the state met its burden of demonstrating that he "is or may be able" to pay the costs and that, therefore, the trial court's error in imposing the costs was plain. See State v. Coverstone. 260 Or.App. 714, 716, 320 P.3d 670 (2014) (the burden is on the state to prove that a defendant is or may be able to pay costs, and it is plain error to impose such costs in the absence of evidence of ability to pay); see also State v. Hunt. 271 Or.App. 347, 352, 350 P.3d 521 (2015) (trial court plainly erred in imposing attorney fees where the record did [285 Or.App. 883] not demonstrate that the state met its burden of showing that the defendant "is or may be able" to pay).

         Furthermore, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error under the circumstances of this case. See Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 382, 382 n 6, 823 P.2d 956 (1991). In our view, the error is grave in light of the substantial amount of costs ordered and the lengthy prison term to which defendant was sentenced. See Coverstone, 260 Or.App. at 716-17 (exercising discretion to correct error for similar reasons); see also State v. Fleet. 270 Or.App. 246, 247, 347 P.3d 345 (2015) (exercising discretion to correct plain error under similar circumstances). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay $2, 030 in extradition costs.

         Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay extradition costs reversed; otherwise affirmed.

---------

Notes:

[1] Pursuant to ORS 161.665(1), "the court, only in the case of a defendant for whom it enters a judgment of conviction, may include in its sentence thereunder a money award for all costs specially incurred by the state in prosecuting the defendant." Under ORS 161.665(7), the court may include in the judgment "a money award requiring the defendant to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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