State v. Tohl

                                    573

Submitted September 30; portion of judgment of conviction requiring defendant
 to pay a $2,255 fine vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed
                              November 14, 2019


                      STATE OF OREGON,
                       Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                 v.
                   TREVOR NATHAN TOHL,
                         aka Trevor Tohl,
                      Defendant-Appellant.
                 Tillamook County Circuit Court
                      16CR73242; A167184
                                

   Mari Garric Trevino, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Portion of judgment of conviction requiring defendant
to pay a $2,255 fine vacated; remanded for resentencing;
otherwise affirmed.
574                                           State v. Tohl

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant appeals the judgment convicting him of
driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010. He
first contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his
request that the court instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on its verdict and (2) accepting the jury’s
nonunanimous verdict. We reject those assignments of error
without further discussion. Defendant also argues that the
court erred by imposing a $2,255 fine in the judgment, which
exceeded by $255 the amount the trial court announced it
would impose at the sentencing hearing. The state concedes
that the judgment erroneously imposed a fine greater than
the one announced at sentencing. We agree and accept the
state’s concession. See State v. Tison, 

,

, rev den, 

 (2018) (agreeing with the
parties that the “trial court erred when it included in the
judgments of conviction a monetary penalty that exceeded
by $255 the fines announced at the sentencing hearing”).
Consequently, we remand for resentencing. See id. at 375
(a remand for resentencing is appropriate when we cannot
discern the trial court’s intentions to waive the $255 fee
required by ORS 813.020(1) and ORS 813.030).
         Portion of judgment of conviction requiring defendant to pay a $2,255 fine vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.