State v. Macias

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 540 November 1, 2017 691 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ISRRAEL GALVAN MACIAS, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 15CR27470; A161824 Thomas M. Ryan, Judge. Submitted September 1, 2017. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Vanessa Areli, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge. PER CURIAM Portion of judgments imposing $255 DUII conviction fees reversed; otherwise affirmed. 692 State v. Macias PER CURIAM Defendant appeals judgments of conviction for reckless driving and for recklessly endangering another person. He assigns error to the trial court’s imposition of a $255 conviction fee on each of those convictions, which is a conviction fee that is authorized under ORS 813.020 for convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). The state concedes that, under State v. Williams, 280 Or App 631, 380 P3d 1225, rev den, 360 Or 604 (2016), the trial court erred in imposing those fees. We accept the state’s concession and, accordingly, reverse the portion of the judgments imposing the $255 DUII conviction fees. In Williams, we observed that “the Multnomah County form of judgment, which includes the $255 DUII conviction fee, seems to be a premarked form that consistently appears to include the $255 fee unless that amount is affirmatively stricken from the form.” Id. at 632. Here, like in the judgment in Williams, the $255 conviction fees are premarked and not affirmatively waived. The imposition of those fines on both convictions was error. Id. at 632-33. Portion of judgments imposing $255 DUII conviction fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.