300 Or. App. 398 - State v. Pacho

                                                   398
499 v. Pacho
State                                                                                                30030,
                                                                                                October  Or2019
                                                                                                            App




                 Submitted September 6; portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay a
               probation violation fee vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed
                                               October 30, 2019


                                  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

450 P3d 1033



                  Monte S. Campbell, Judge.
   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,

450 P3d 57

 (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.