Background
Bruce Wade Looney appealed from a judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree disorderly conduct under ORS 166.025. His sole assignment of error concerned language in the judgment stating that the court could increase the total amount owed by adding “collection fees and other assessments” without further notice or court order.
Looney acknowledged that ORS 1.202 authorized the collection-fee portion of the provision, but argued that the statute did not authorize “other assessments.” He asked the Court of Appeals to remand for deletion of the unauthorized language or for resentencing. The state conceded the error.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession and held that the trial court lacked statutory authority to provide for the later addition of “other assessments” in the judgment. The court relied on State v. Martinez, which held that a trial court may not impose such assessments for the first time through judgment language.
The court concluded that resentencing was unnecessary because the only error was the inclusion of terms that the trial court lacked authority to impose. It reversed the portion of the judgment concerning additional assessments and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting the words “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” The judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 1.202 authorized the judgment’s reference to collection fees, but not its reference to “other assessments.”
- A trial court may not authorize the addition of unspecified assessments for the first time through language in the judgment.
- When the sole error is unauthorized judgment language, the proper remedy is an amended judgment deleting that language rather than resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that financial obligations in criminal judgments require statutory authority and cannot be expanded through boilerplate language. It also confirms that Oregon appellate courts may correct this narrow type of error by ordering an amended judgment while leaving the conviction and the remainder of the judgment intact.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.