Background
Wesley Aaron Jones appealed his judgment of conviction for first-degree online sexual corruption of a child under ORS 163.433.
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 a court order. Jones acknowledged that ORS 1.202 permits collection fees but argued that it does not authorize “other assessments.”
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession that the trial court lacked statutory authority to include language allowing “other assessments” to be added for the first time in the judgment. The court relied on its decision in State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 587 P3d 428 (2026).
Because the only error was the inclusion of unauthorized terms, the court declined to order resentencing. It reversed the portion of the judgment concerning additional assessments and remanded for an amended judgment deleting the phrases “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” The judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 1.202 authorizes collection fees but does not authorize unspecified “other assessments” to be added through judgment language.
- A trial court may not impose financial terms in a written judgment that it lacks statutory authority to impose.
- When the sole error is unauthorized language in the judgment, the appropriate remedy may be an amended judgment deleting that language rather than resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that criminal judgments must distinguish authorized collection fees from other financial assessments lacking statutory support. Boilerplate language cannot independently expand a defendant’s financial obligations.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.