Background
Nathan Joao Ramirez appealed a Douglas County Circuit Court judgment convicting him of fourth-degree assault under ORS 163.160 and harassment under ORS 166.065. The judgment stated that the court could increase the total amount he owed by adding “collection fees and other assessments” without further notice or court order.
In his sole assignment of error, Ramirez acknowledged that ORS 1.202 authorized the collection-fee provision but argued that it did not authorize “other assessments.” He requested a remand for resentencing. The state conceded that the challenged assessment language was erroneous but argued that the proper remedy was an amended judgment deleting it.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and held that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose “other assessments” for the first time in the written judgment. The court relied on State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 279, 587 P3d 428 (2026).
The court concluded that resentencing was unnecessary because the sole error was the inclusion of unauthorized terms in the judgment. It reversed the portion of the judgment concerning additional assessments and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting the words “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 1.202 authorized the judgment’s collection-fee language but did not authorize the addition of unspecified “other assessments.”
- A trial court may not impose unauthorized monetary terms for the first time in a written criminal judgment.
- When the only error is unauthorized language in the judgment, the appropriate remedy may be an amended judgment rather than resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that monetary obligations in criminal judgments must have statutory authorization. It also confirms that an appellate court may direct a limited correction of the written judgment when deleting the unauthorized terms fully remedies the error.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).