Background
Ona Kay Robertson appealed five judgments of conviction for various offenses in a consolidated appeal. The sole assignment of error challenged language in each judgment stating that the trial court could increase the total amount owed by adding “collection fees and other assessments” without further notice to Robertson or a further court order.
Robertson acknowledged that ORS 1.202 authorized the collection-fee portion of the judgments but argued that the statute did not authorize the addition of “other assessments.” The state conceded the error.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession. Relying on State v. Martinez, the court held that the trial court lacked statutory authority to provide for the later addition of unspecified “other assessments” through language included for the first time in the judgments.
The court concluded that the proper remedy was to remand for amended judgments deleting the words “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It reversed only the portions of the five judgments concerning those assessments and otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 1.202 permits collection fees, but it did not authorize the judgments’ provision for adding unspecified “other assessments.”
- A trial court may not impose unauthorized monetary terms for the first time through judgment language.
- Because the error was confined to unauthorized terms in the judgments, the remedy was amendment of the judgments rather than reversal of the convictions.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that monetary obligations in criminal judgments must have statutory authorization. Standard-form language allowing future additions cannot expand a court’s authority beyond what the legislature has provided.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.