Background
Feysal Sufi Noor appealed convictions in Case No. 22CR38219 for first-degree burglary constituting domestic violence (two counts), first-degree sexual abuse constituting domestic violence, coercion constituting domestic violence, resisting arrest, and harassment. In a consolidated appeal, he also challenged a probation revocation in Case No. 21CR27893 based on the convictions from the first case. The trial court was presided over by Judge Chanpone P. Sinlapasai.
On appeal, Noor raised six assignments of error. His first challenge involved the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that “reasonable doubt” requires each juror to reach a “subjective state of near certainty” of guilt—an argument he acknowledged was already foreclosed by recent precedent in State v. Dowd. His remaining five assignments targeted various sentencing errors.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded Case No. 22CR38219 for resentencing. The court rejected Noor’s first assignment of error regarding jury instructions, holding it was barred by State v. Dowd, 342 Or App 57, 575 P3d 166 (2025).
As to the sentencing errors (assignments two through five), the state conceded the trial court erred on all four grounds: (1) the court erroneously entered a separate conviction and sentence for harassment when it had orally stated it would merge that charge with first-degree sexual abuse; (2) the court imposed per diem fees on certain counts without pronouncing those fees at sentencing; (3) the court imposed a $200 fine on Count 2 without pronouncing it on the record; and (4) the court ordered it could impose additional assessments without further notice to defendant and without further court order. The appellate court accepted these concessions, recognizing that a criminal defendant has a right to have their sentence announced in open court and that right extends to substantive sentence modifications. Regarding the sixth assignment concerning merger of verdicts, the court declined to exercise discretion to address this unpreserved claim, allowing the trial court to resolve the issue on remand during resentencing.
The probation revocation case (No. 21CR27893) was affirmed without modification.
Key Takeaways
- Jury instructions on “reasonable doubt” need not instruct that the standard requires a subjective state of near certainty; the trial court properly declined such an instruction under established Oregon precedent.
- Trial courts must pronounce all sentencing components—including fines, fees, and other assessments—in open court on the record; oral statements not reflected in the written judgment or sentencing pronouncement may constitute error requiring remand.
- When sentencing errors are conceded by the state and require substantive modification of a sentence, remand for resentencing is necessary even if other appellate issues fail.
- Unpreserved merger claims may be left for the trial court to address on remand rather than reviewed for plain error on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict procedural requirements for sentencing in Oregon criminal cases. Although Noor’s convictions for serious domestic violence crimes—including first-degree sexual abuse and burglary—were upheld, the case illustrates that sentencing must comply with formal pronouncement rules. Trial courts cannot rely on oral statements alone; every fee, fine, and condition must be stated clearly and recorded in the judgment or stated on the record in open court. Even when convictions are affirmed, failure to follow these sentencing procedures results in remand.
For defense practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of preserving sentencing arguments at trial, as unpreserved claims may not receive appellate review even when remand is granted for other sentencing errors. The court’s willingness to accept the state’s concessions of error demonstrates that sentencing compliance is a shared responsibility and that appellate courts will correct these mechanical but important errors to ensure due process.