State v. Pacho
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
398 October 30, 2019 No. 499 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LUIS G. SOLIS PACHO, aka Luis Gerardo Solis, aka Luis Solis-Pacho, Defendant-Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 18CR03095; A168412 Monte S. Campbell, Judge. Submitted September 6, 2019. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, 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 Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay a probation violation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 300 Or App 398 (2019) 399 PER CURIAM In this criminal appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of a probation-violation fee that was not announced in open court. Defendant was serving an 18-month probation sentence, and the state alleged that he had failed to report to the supervising authority. At the show-cause hearing, defendant admitted the allegations. The trial court revoked probation but did not mention the imposition of any probation fine or fee. However, in the written judgment, the court imposed a $25 “probation violation assessment.” The state concedes that the court erred by imposing a $25 probation fee for the first time in the judgment. See State v. Hillman, 293 Or App 231, 233, 426 P3d 249 (2018) (trial court erred by imposing outside the defendant’s presence $25 probation-violation fee); State v. Zamno, 299 Or App 270, 272, ___ P3d ___ (2019) (vacating erroneously imposed $25 probation-violation fee and remanding for resentencing). We agree and accept the state’s concession. Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay a probation violation fee vacated; 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.
