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. Crider

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 28, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LESTER SHERMAN CRIDER, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted October 11, 2016

          Washington County Circuit Court C150161CR Andrew Erwin, Judge.

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

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment in which he was convicted of failure to report as a sex offender who had changed residence, former ORS 181.812(1)(d) (2013), and failure to report as a sex offender by failing to make an annual report, former ORS 181.812(1)(e) (2013). He assigns error to the trial court's failure to merge the two guilty verdicts, arguing that the subsections of former ORS 181.812 under which he was charged are merely two ways of committing the same crime. He also assigns as plain error the trial court's imposition of $628 in court-appointed attorney fees, contending that the court lacked the authority to do so in the absence of evidence that defendant could pay the fees.

         Held:

         The state conceded that the trial court plainly erred as to the imposition of attorney fees. The Court of Appeals accepted the state's concession and exercised its discretion to correct the error. As for defendant's merger argument, the crimes of conviction are separate crimes and, therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to merge his convictions.

         Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

         [291 Or. 24] ORTEGA, P.J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment in which he was convicted of (1) failure to report as a sex offender that he changed residence, former ORS 181.812(1)(d) (2013) (Count 1), and (2) failure to report as a sex offender by failing to make an annual report, former ORS 181.812(1)(e) (2013) (Count 2).[1]He assigns error to the trial court's failure to merge the two guilty verdicts, arguing that the subsections of former ORS 181.812 under which he was charged are merely two ways of committing the same crime. He also assigns as plain error the trial court's imposition of $628 in court-appointed attorney fees because the court lacked the authority to do so in the absence of evidence that defendant could pay the fees. The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred as to the imposition of attorney fees, and we accept the state's concession. As for defendant's merger argument, we conclude that the crimes of conviction are separate crimes and, therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to merge his convictions.

         We begin with defendant's argument that the trial court erred by not merging the guilty verdicts, a ruling that we review for legal error. State v. Black, 270 Or.App. 501, 504-05, 348 P.3d 1154 (2015). Defendant was charged with the following two counts of failure to report:

"COUNT 1
"The defendant, on or about December 11, 2014, in Washington County, Oregon, being a person who was required by law to report in person, as a sex offender, to the Department of State Police, a chief of police or a county sheriff or, if the person is under supervision, to the supervising agency, within 10 days of a change of residence in this state, having changed residence in this state and ...

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.