Background
Donato Mendoza Gonzalez pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants in Malheur County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced him to probation.
The written judgment required Gonzalez to pay any required per diem fees, although the court had not announced that requirement in open court at sentencing. Gonzalez appealed the inclusion of the provision, and the state conceded that the trial court had erred.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and held that the trial court erred by including the per diem-fee requirement in the written judgment without announcing it in Gonzalez’s presence at sentencing. A criminal defendant has the right to have the sentence pronounced in open court, and adding an unannounced term to the written judgment is ordinarily reversible error.
The court concluded that the appropriate remedy was to remand the case for resentencing. It did not disturb Gonzalez’s conviction.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal sentence must be announced in open court in the defendant’s presence.
- A written judgment generally may not add a financial obligation that the court did not pronounce at sentencing.
- The court remanded for resentencing after accepting the state’s concession of error.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that the oral pronouncement of a criminal sentence controls what terms may appear in the written judgment. Even a provision concerning per diem fees can require resentencing when it was not announced in open court.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.