State v. Tohl , 300 Or. App. 573 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     573
    Submitted September 30; portion of judgment of conviction requiring defendant
    to pay a $2,255 fine vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed
    November 14, 2019
    STATE OF OREGON,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    TREVOR NATHAN TOHL,
    aka Trevor Tohl,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Tillamook County Circuit Court
    16CR73242; A167184
    451 P3d 1031
    Mari Garric Trevino, Judge.
    Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
    Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office
    of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
    Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney
    General, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
    and Aoyagi, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
    Portion of judgment of conviction requiring defendant
    to pay a $2,255 fine vacated; remanded for resentencing;
    otherwise affirmed.
    574                                           State v. Tohl
    PER CURIAM
    Defendant appeals the judgment convicting him of
    driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010. He
    first contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his
    request that the court instruct the jury that it must unan-
    imously agree on its verdict and (2) accepting the jury’s
    nonunanimous verdict. We reject those assignments of error
    without further discussion. Defendant also argues that the
    court erred by imposing a $2,255 fine in the judgment, which
    exceeded by $255 the amount the trial court announced it
    would impose at the sentencing hearing. The state concedes
    that the judgment erroneously imposed a fine greater than
    the one announced at sentencing. We agree and accept the
    state’s concession. See State v. Tison, 
    292 Or App 369
    , 374,
    424 P3d 823, rev den, 
    363 Or 744
     (2018) (agreeing with the
    parties that the “trial court erred when it included in the
    judgments of conviction a monetary penalty that exceeded
    by $255 the fines announced at the sentencing hearing”).
    Consequently, we remand for resentencing. See id. at 375
    (a remand for resentencing is appropriate when we cannot
    discern the trial court’s intentions to waive the $255 fee
    required by ORS 813.020(1) and ORS 813.030).
    Portion of judgment of conviction requiring defen-
    dant to pay a $2,255 fine vacated; remanded for resentenc-
    ing; otherwise affirmed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A167184

Citation Numbers: 300 Or. App. 573

Filed Date: 11/14/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/10/2024