Background
Lucas Jordan Raffin appealed from a Washington County Circuit Court judgment convicting him of driving under the influence of intoxicants. The case was decided by a two-judge department of the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by state law.
Raffin raised two sentencing issues. He argued that the trial court improperly included per diem fees in the written judgment without announcing them at sentencing. He also challenged language allowing the court to impose additional assessments without further notice to him or a further court order. The state conceded both errors.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concessions. It explained that a criminal defendant has the right to have the sentence announced in open court and that placing an unannounced sentencing term in the written judgment is reversible error. Because the trial court had not announced the per diem fees at sentencing, the court remanded for resentencing.
The court also concluded that the judgment improperly included the challenged “other assessments” language. It noted that the trial court could correct that error during resentencing. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A written criminal judgment generally may not add sentencing terms that were not announced in the defendant’s presence in open court.
- The unannounced per diem-fee requirement required a remand for resentencing.
- The trial court may also remove or correct the improper “other assessments” language on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the requirement that defendants hear the terms of their sentences in open court rather than first encountering additional financial obligations in a written judgment. It also illustrates that unauthorized language permitting future assessments can be corrected during resentencing.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as that rule permits.