Background
David Ray Yarbrough was convicted in Yamhill County Circuit Court of driving while suspended or revoked. The resulting judgment stated that the court could impose “other assessments” without further notice to Yarbrough and without a further court order.
Yarbrough appealed, challenging the inclusion of that provision. The state conceded that the trial court had erred by including the assessment terms.
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 “other assessments” terms in the judgment. The court relied on State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 587 P3d 428 (2026), which addressed the same type of unauthorized language.
Because the only error was the inclusion of terms that the trial court had no authority to impose, the court reversed the portions of the judgment concerning additional assessments and remanded for entry of an amended judgment deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” The judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal judgment may not authorize additional monetary assessments when the trial court lacks statutory authority to impose them.
- When the sole error is unauthorized language in the judgment, the proper remedy is a limited remand to delete that language.
- The court left Yarbrough’s conviction and the remainder of the judgment intact.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that monetary obligations in criminal judgments must rest on statutory authority. Even when a conviction is otherwise valid, unauthorized assessment language must be removed from the judgment.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.