307 Or. App. 192 - State v. Duyck

                                    192

       Submitted September 4; portion of amended judgment imposing
additional $1,500 fine vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed
                                October 7, 2020


                    STATE OF OREGON,
                     Plaintiff-Respondent,
                               v.
                   STACEY ANN DUYCK,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
               Washington County Circuit Court
                    18CR37788; A170331

473 P3d 615



  Ricardo J. Menchaca, 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 Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
   Portion of amended judgment imposing additional $1,500
fine vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Cite as

307 Or App 192

 (2020)                             193

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree theft,
ORS 164.043, which is a Class C misdemeanor. The court
suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on
probation, requiring her to pay a $100 fine and complete
48 hours of community service. Thereafter, the court found
defendant in violation of her probation for failing to complete
community service and amended the judgment to impose
an additional fine of $1,500. Defendant did not object but
argues on appeal that the court plainly erred in imposing
the additional fine because, under ORS 161.635(1)(c), the
maximum fine for a Class C misdemeanor is $1,250. The
state concedes the error.
         This court has concluded that imposition of a sentence that exceeds a statutory maximum constitutes plain
error. See, e.g., State v. Snyder,

298 Or App 804

447 P3d 41

,
rev den,

366 Or 64

 (2019) (exercising discretion to correct
error where total length of sentence exceeded statutory maximum). This court also has corrected plain errors regarding
the amount of a fine. See generally State v. Loudermilk,

288 Or App 88

405 P3d 195

 (2017) (court erred in concluding that
defendant was subject to mandatory minimum fine). Under
the circumstance presented here, we conclude that the court
plainly erred in imposing a fine in an amount greater than
allowed under ORS 161.635(1)(c), and that the gravity of the
error and the ends of justice weigh in favor of exercising
our discretion to correct it. See generally Ailes v. Portland
Meadows, Inc.,

312 Or 376, 382-83

823 P2d 956

 (1991) (setting out factors to consider in the exercise of discretion).
        Portion of amended judgment imposing additional
$1,500 fine vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise
affirmed.