Background
Jonathon Albert Guevarra appealed his convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants and reckless driving. His sole assignment of error challenged language in the judgment stating that the court could increase the amount owed by adding collection fees and “other assessments” without further notice or court order.
Guevarra acknowledged that ORS 1.202 permits the addition of collection fees, but argued that the statute does not authorize unspecified “other assessments.” The state conceded the error and argued that the proper remedy was an amended judgment deleting the unauthorized language rather than resentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and held that the trial court lacked statutory authority to provide for the later addition of “other assessments” in the written judgment. The court relied on State v. Martinez, which addressed the same type of unauthorized judgment language.
Because the only error was the inclusion of terms that the trial court lacked authority to impose, the court declined to order resentencing. It reversed the relevant portion of the judgment and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments,” while otherwise affirming.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 1.202 authorizes collection fees but does not authorize unspecified “other assessments” to be added through judgment language.
- Unauthorized monetary terms appearing for the first time in a criminal judgment must be removed.
- When deletion of the improper terms fully remedies the error, an amended judgment—not resentencing—is appropriate.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that criminal judgments may not reserve open-ended authority to add monetary assessments without statutory authorization. It also illustrates the limited remedy applied when the defect is confined to unauthorized language in the written judgment.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.