Background
Benjamin Adam Bullard appealed two judgments of conviction in consolidated cases, but assigned error only to the judgment in Case No. 25CR10427. He did not assign error to the judgment in Case No. 25CR19916.
The challenged judgment stated that the court could increase the total amount owed by adding collection fees “and other assessments” without further notice or court order. Bullard argued that the trial court lacked authority to include the phrases “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” The state conceded the error.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession. Applying State v. Martinez, the court concluded that the trial court lacked statutory authority to include terms permitting the addition of other assessments to the judgment.
The court reversed the affected portions of the judgment in Case No. 25CR10427 and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It otherwise affirmed that judgment and affirmed the judgment in Case No. 25CR19916 because Bullard had assigned no error to it.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court may not include judgment terms authorizing “other assessments” when it lacks statutory authority to impose them.
- When the sole error is unauthorized language in a judgment, the proper remedy is remand for an amended judgment deleting that language.
- An unchallenged judgment in a consolidated appeal remains affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Martinez to require precise limits on language permitting later additions to a criminal defendant’s financial obligations. It also illustrates that a narrow judgment-entry error can be corrected by targeted remand without disturbing the remainder of the conviction judgment.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.