Background
Jose Julio Tapia entered a conditional no contest plea to driving under the influence of intoxicants. The Crook County Circuit Court sentenced him to probation.
Although the court stated at sentencing that it was not imposing any fines or fees, the written judgment required Tapia to pay any required per diem fees. That requirement had not been announced in open court. Tapia appealed the inclusion of the provision, and the state conceded error.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and held that the judgment improperly included the per diem fee provision. The court reversed that portion of the judgment and otherwise affirmed.
Because the trial court had expressly stated that it was imposing no fines or fees, the Court of Appeals remanded for entry of a corrected judgment deleting the provision rather than for resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- A written criminal judgment may not impose per diem fees that were not announced at sentencing.
- When the sentencing court expressly states that it is imposing no fees, the appropriate remedy may be correction of the judgment rather than resentencing.
- The decision is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion subject to ORAP 10.30’s citation restrictions.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that the written judgment must conform to the sentence announced in open court. An unannounced financial obligation can be removed on appeal even when the remainder of the conviction and sentence is affirmed.
For practitioners, the opinion also illustrates the narrower remedy available when the sentencing record makes the court’s intent clear: remand to delete the improper provision instead of conducting a new sentencing proceeding.