Background
Kenneth Romy Taroy pleaded guilty in three cases to harassment, unlawful possession of methamphetamine, and first-degree criminal trespass. The cases were consolidated on appeal.
Taroy challenged five special probation conditions included in the written judgments because the trial court had not announced them at sentencing. The court had referred only to an “alcohol and drug package” and a “mental health package.” He also challenged language in two judgments allowing collection fees and other assessments to be added without further notice or court order.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession that the trial court erred by including the five probation conditions. Nothing in the record established that the court’s shorthand references encompassed the specific conditions later listed in the written judgments. The court therefore remanded all three cases for resentencing.
The court also accepted the state’s concession that the trial court lacked statutory authority to include the challenged “other assessments” language. It directed that “and other assessments” and “and assessments” be deleted from the judgments in the harassment and criminal-trespass cases. The court otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court’s shorthand reference to a probation “package” does not support conditions later included in a written judgment unless the record shows what that package contained.
- Probation conditions not properly announced at sentencing required resentencing in all three consolidated cases.
- Unauthorized language permitting additional assessments had to be deleted from two judgments.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that defendants must receive adequate notice at sentencing of the probation conditions ultimately imposed in the written judgment. Generic references to treatment packages are insufficient when the record does not identify their component conditions.
The opinion also confirms that Oregon trial courts may not include assessment language lacking statutory authorization. The decision is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.