DocketNumber: 130343961; A154942
Citation Numbers: 275 Or. App. 160, 362 P.3d 1211
Judges: Devore, Duncan, Flynn
Filed Date: 12/2/2015
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
In this criminal case, defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting him of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010. At defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a $1,500 fine but stated that it would suspend $1,000 of the fine pending defendant’s successful completion of probation. However, in its written judgment, the trial court suspended only $500 of defendant’s fine. Additionally, in its written judgment, the trial court imposed a $500 “Chapter 163 assessment.”
On appeal, defendant raises two assignments of error.
In his second assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing a greater fine than that announced in open court. However, during the pendency of
Portion of judgment imposing $500 Chapter 163 assessment reversed; otherwise affirmed.
In addition to the brief filed by his appellate attorney, defendant filed a pro se brief. We reject the arguments made in the pro se brief without discussion.
Defendant did not object to the assessment, but, because the trial court imposed the assessment outside of defendant’s presence, defendant was not required to object to the assessment in order for us to review it. See, e.g., State v. Beckham, 253 Or App 609, 613 n 5, 292 P3d 611 (2012) (preservation principles were inapposite when “nothing in the record indicate [d] that defendant had notice of, or a prior opportunity to object to, the trial court’s restitution ruling before the court entered the supplemental judgment”).