State v. Crow
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
196 May 31, 2018 No. 252 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KANDI LUCILE CROW, Defendant-Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 121062M; A162791 Thomas M. Hull, Judge. Submitted April 6, 2018. 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 judgment imposing court-appointed attorney fees reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 292 Or App 196 (2018) 197 PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment revoking her probation. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s imposition of $110 in court-appointed attorney fees and a $25 probationviolation fee. Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it ordered her to pay those fees because the court entered them in the judgment without first announcing in court that it would impose them. Defendant requests that we remand the case for resentencing. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing attorney fees for the first time in the judgment. However, the state argues that, because it agrees with defendant that that error requires a remand, we need not reach defendant’s assignment of error to the court’s imposition of the probation-violation fee. We agree with and accept the state’s concession regarding the attorney fees and, accordingly, reverse the imposition of those fees. See State v. White, 269 Or App 255, 256-57, 344 P3d 510, rev den, 357 Or 300 (2015) (accepting state’s concession that trial court erred in imposing court-appointed attorney fees for the first time in the judgment). Also, because the parties agree that the error in this case necessitates a remand for resentencing, we do not reach defendant’s argument regarding the imposition of the probation-violation fee. Portion of judgment imposing court-appointed attorney fees reversed; remanded for resentencing; 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.
