Background
Samuel Ezekiel Stone Deland-Fleming appealed judgments in two consolidated criminal cases, Case Nos. 22CR57342 and 24CR50945. He did not assign error to any ruling in Case No. 24CR50945.
In Case No. 22CR57342, the written judgment imposed per diem fees on four counts even though the sentencing court had not announced those fees in open court. At sentencing, the court stated that it would waive fines and fees so that Deland-Fleming’s financial resources could be devoted to restitution.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by including the per diem fees for the first time in the written judgment. Although Deland-Fleming had not preserved the issue, preservation was excused because he had no notice of, or opportunity to object to, the unannounced terms.
Because the sentencing court had expressly indicated that it intended to waive fines and fees, the Court of Appeals concluded that resentencing was unnecessary. It reversed and remanded Case No. 22CR57342 for entry of a judgment deleting the per diem fee provisions, otherwise affirmed that judgment, and affirmed the judgment in Case No. 24CR50945.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal defendant has the right to have the sentence announced in open court.
- A fee first imposed in the written judgment may be challenged without preservation when the defendant had no notice or opportunity to object.
- When the sentencing court expressly waived fines and fees, the appropriate remedy was deletion of the unannounced fees rather than resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a written criminal judgment may not add financial obligations that were never announced at sentencing. It also shows that an appellate court may order direct correction of the judgment when the sentencing record makes the trial court’s intent clear.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).