Background
Kipper Andrew Walls appealed a Deschutes County Circuit Court judgment convicting him of one count of driving under the influence of intoxicants.
In his sole assignment of error, Walls challenged provisions stating that the court could impose “other assessments” without further notice to him and without a further court order. The state conceded that those provisions were erroneous.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and held that the trial court lacked statutory authority to include the challenged assessment terms in the judgment. The court relied on its 2026 decision in State v. Martinez.
Because the only error was the inclusion of terms that the trial court lacked authority to impose, the court reversed the affected portions and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court lacks statutory authority to include judgment terms permitting unspecified “other assessments” to be added later.
- When the sole error is unauthorized language in a judgment, the proper remedy is a remand directing deletion of that language.
- The DUII conviction and all unaffected portions of Walls’s judgment remained affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that criminal judgments may not reserve open-ended authority to add unspecified assessments without further notice or court action. Defendants and counsel should review monetary-obligation provisions for language exceeding the trial court’s statutory authority.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.