Background
Bennett Peter John Miller appealed a Multnomah County Circuit Court judgment convicting him of two counts of first-degree murder. His sole assignment of error challenged language in the judgment stating that the court could increase the total amount owed by adding “collection fees and other assessments” without further notice or court order.
Miller acknowledged that ORS 1.202 permits the collection-fee provision, but argued that the statute did not authorize “other assessments.” He requested a remand for resentencing. The state conceded that the challenged assessment language was erroneous but maintained that the proper remedy was a limited remand to amend the judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and held that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose “other assessments” for the first time in the written judgment. The court relied on State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 279, 587 P3d 428 (2026).
The court declined to order resentencing. Because the only error was the inclusion of unauthorized terms in the judgment, it remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It otherwise affirmed the judgment, leaving Miller’s murder convictions undisturbed.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 1.202 authorized the judgment’s collection-fee language but did not authorize the additional “other assessments” language.
- A trial court may not impose unauthorized assessments for the first time in a written judgment.
- The remedy was a limited remand to delete the improper language, not resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that monetary obligations in criminal judgments require statutory authority. When the defect consists solely of unauthorized language added to the judgment, Oregon appellate courts may direct a targeted amendment rather than require a new sentencing proceeding.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).