State v. Snyder
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
880 July 18, 2018 No. 338 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL FREDERICK SNYDER, Defendant-Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court CF140665; A162201 Eva J. Temple, Judge. Submitted June 7, 2018. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Stephanie J. Hortsch, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the opening brief for appellant. Michael Frederick Snyder filed the supplemental brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay “Mandatory State Amt” on each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 292 Or App 880 (2018) 881 PER CURIAM After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of attempt to elude police with a vehicle, interfering with a peace officer, and resisting arrest, and the court imposed a “Mandatory State Amt” of $60 on each conviction as part of defendant’s sentence. On appeal, he argues—and the state concedes—that the trial court did not have authority to impose those separate assessments and that they should be reversed. We agree with the parties and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Pranzetti, 269 Or App 410, 344 P3d 547 (2015) (reversing portion of judgment imposing $60 “mandatory state amt.” where no statute authorized that assessment). In a supplemental pro se brief, defendant also argues that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to prove, as an affirmative defense, that he was unable to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law because of a mental disorder. We reject that argument without discussion. Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay “Mandatory State Amt” on each conviction 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.
