Background
Cameron Cory Viren pleaded guilty to driving while suspended. The Yamhill County Circuit Court imposed a 25-day jail term and waived a $100 fine.
The written judgment nevertheless stated that the court could increase the amount owed by adding collection fees and other assessments without further notice or court order. It also directed the court clerk to schedule payment of fines, fees, assessments, or attorney fees under ORS 161.675. Both provisions appeared for the first time in the judgment, and Viren challenged their inclusion on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked statutory authority to include the language allowing “other assessments” to be added. Applying State v. Martinez, the court reversed that portion of the judgment and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting the unauthorized references to assessments.
The court rejected Viren’s challenge to the payment-scheduling provision. Under State v. Foos, directing the clerk to schedule payments in accordance with ORS 161.675 is not reversible error absent a showing that the clerk is acting inconsistently with the statute. Because Viren made no such showing, the court otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal judgment may not authorize the later addition of “other assessments” when the trial court lacks statutory authority to impose that term.
- The proper remedy was a remand to delete the unauthorized assessment language, not reversal of Viren’s conviction or remaining sentence.
- A judgment may direct the clerk to schedule payments under ORS 161.675 unless the defendant shows that the clerk is acting contrary to that statute.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that written criminal judgments cannot include monetary terms unsupported by statutory authority, even when those terms appear as standardized language and no monetary assessment was imposed at sentencing.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.