Background
Alverto Garcia appealed judgments of conviction in three consolidated criminal cases. In Case No. 22CR61309, he did not assign error to any ruling.
In Case Nos. 25CR09723 and 25CR09728, Garcia challenged provisions stating that the trial court could impose “other assessments” without further notice to him and without a further court order. The state conceded that including those provisions was 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 two judgments. The court relied on State v. Martinez, which held that such “other assessments” language was unauthorized.
Because the error consisted solely of unauthorized judgment terms, the court reversed those portions of the judgments and remanded for amended judgments deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It otherwise affirmed those judgments and affirmed the judgment in Case No. 22CR61309 in full.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal judgment may not reserve authority to impose unspecified additional assessments when no statute authorizes that term.
- When the only error is unauthorized language in a judgment, the proper remedy is a limited remand to delete that language.
- An appealed judgment is affirmed when the appellant assigns no error to any ruling in that case.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that financial obligations in criminal judgments must rest on statutory authority and cannot be expanded through open-ended assessment language. Its direct precedential value is limited because it is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.