Background
Martin Arnold Janisse was convicted of misdemeanor driving while suspended in Lane County Circuit Court. The trial court entered a judgment that included language stating: “The court may increase the total amount owed by adding collection fees and other assessments. These fees and assessments may be added without further notice to the defendant and without further court order.”
Janisse appealed, challenging the propriety of this judgment language on plain error review. The appeal centered on whether the trial court had authority to include language permitting unilateral addition of financial obligations without notice or additional court proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for entry of an amended judgment. The court recently addressed identical language in State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 587 P3d 428 (2026), establishing that collection fees are authorized under ORS 1.202 and may be included in a judgment. However, the court concluded that ORS 1.202 does not authorize a court to increase the total amount a defendant owes through addition of “other assessments” without notice to the defendant or a court order.
Applying this precedent directly, the appellate court found that the judgment language here was improper and ordered deletion of the terms “and other assessments” and “and assessments” from the judgment. The conviction itself was affirmed; only the judgment language was corrected.
Key Takeaways
- Collection fees authorized under ORS 1.202 may be included in criminal judgments without requiring separate notice or court orders.
- Trial courts lack authority to add “other assessments” to a defendant’s financial obligations without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Judgment language permitting unilateral modification of financial obligations without defendant notice violates procedural requirements.
- Plain error review applies to defective judgment language even when not explicitly raised at trial.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the limits of trial court authority to impose financial obligations on criminal defendants. While collection fees are expressly authorized, courts cannot add unspecified “assessments” to judgments without providing defendants notice and an opportunity to contest them. The ruling protects defendants’ due process rights and ensures that all financial obligations imposed in criminal cases receive proper judicial consideration and notice.
For prosecutors and defense counsel, the decision establishes that judgment language must specifically identify permissible fee categories and cannot grant courts blanket authority to increase amounts for undefined assessments. Trial courts must ensure compliant judgment language to avoid reversal on appeal.