Background
Mario Hernandez-Marquez appealed a judgment convicting him of four counts of first-degree rape and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse.
His sole assignment of error challenged language in the judgment providing that the trial court could impose “other assessments” without further notice to him or a further court order. The state conceded that the language was erroneous.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession. Relying on State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 279, 587 P3d 428 (2026), the court concluded that the trial court lacked statutory authority to include the challenged assessment terms in the judgment.
The court held that the proper remedy was to remand for an amended judgment deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court lacks statutory authority to include terms permitting additional assessments without further notice or court order.
- When the only error is unauthorized language in a judgment, the appropriate remedy is a limited remand directing deletion of that language.
- Hernandez-Marquez’s convictions and the remainder of the judgment were affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that criminal judgments may not reserve open-ended authority to add assessments beyond what Oregon law permits. Appellate relief may be narrowly tailored to remove unauthorized terms without disturbing the underlying convictions or otherwise valid portions of the judgment.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.