Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

303 Or. App. 163

State v. Postlethwait

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 18, 2020

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2020-03-18

In 18CR49270, affirmed · Decided 2020-03-18

                                    163

  Submitted February 24; in 18CR49270, affirmed; in 18CR37684, portion of
judgment requiring defendant to pay probation violation fee vacated; remanded
   for resentencing; otherwise affirmed March 18; petition for review denied
                         August 27, 2020 (
366 Or 163
)


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
           ALEXANDER JOHN POSTLETHWAIT,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
               Klamath County Circuit Court
                  18CR37684, 18CR49270;
            A168635 (Control), A168636, A168897
                                
459 P3d 964


   Dan Bunch, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
James, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   In 18CR49270, affirmed. In 18CR37684, portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay probation violation fee
vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
164                                     State v. Postlethwait

        PER CURIAM
         In these consolidated cases, defendant appeals from
judgments of conviction in two criminal cases. We reject
without discussion defendant’s challenges to imposition of
a fine in one of the cases and conditions of probation in both
cases. Defendant also appeals from a judgment revoking his
probation in one of the cases, 18CR37684, arguing that the
trial court erred when it imposed a $25 probation violation
fee that was not announced in open court. The state concedes that the court erred by imposing the $25 probation fee
for the first time in the judgment. We agree and accept the
state’s concession. See State v. Pacho, 
300 Or App 398
, 
450 P3d 1033
 (2019) (correcting similar error).
        In 18CR49270, affirmed. In 18CR37684, portion of
judgment requiring defendant to pay probation violation fee
vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

/303/orapp/163 · .json · Public domain