Background
Travis Allen Laib was convicted in Umatilla County Circuit Court of one count of menacing. The resulting judgment stated that the court could impose “other assessments” without further notice to Laib and without a further court order.
Laib appealed, arguing in his sole assignment of error that the trial court lacked authority to include those terms. The state conceded the error.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with and accepted the state’s concession. Applying State v. Martinez, the court concluded that the trial court lacked statutory authority to include terms permitting additional assessments in the judgment.
Because the only error was the inclusion of unauthorized judgment terms, the court remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal judgment may not authorize “other assessments” when the trial court lacks statutory authority to impose such terms.
- When the sole error is the inclusion of unauthorized terms, the appropriate remedy is a limited remand to delete them.
- The court left Laib’s menacing conviction and the remainder of the judgment intact.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that monetary obligations in criminal judgments must have statutory authorization and cannot be expanded through open-ended assessment language.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.