State v. Ewing

                                  548

   Submitted February 28; remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed
                             March 23, 2022


                     STATE OF OREGON,
                      Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                v.
                   STEVEN ALAN EWING,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                   Lane County Circuit Court
                     20CR19389; A174164
                               

  Kamala H. Shugar, Judge.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2022)                                                  549

           PER CURIAM
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
menacing, ORS 163.190, interfering with a peace officer,
ORS 162.247, and second-degree disorderly conduct, ORS
166.025, raising a single assignment of error related to
sentencing. At defendant’s sentencing hearing, the court
imposed the probation condition that defendant “report to
the Court in writing within five days of any change of your
address and any new arrests or citation for a major traffic offense.” However, in the judgment, on each count, the
court ordered as a “general condition[ ]” of probation that
defendant notify “the Court, District Attorney, and defendant’s attorney, in writing, within 5 days of any change in
residence, employment, or name. Mail correspondence to:
Lane County Circuit Court, 125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene,
Oregon, 97401, and include the case number.”
         On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court
erred in imposing the reporting probation condition in the
judgment because it was not orally announced in court. That
is so, according to defendant, because the reporting condition that the court imposed in the judgment varied from the
reporting condition it imposed in open court. The state disagrees, arguing that the challenged condition was imposed
in defendant’s presence because the reporting condition that
appeared in the judgment was sufficiently similar to the one
the court imposed at defendant’s sentencing hearing.
         An extended discussion of this case would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. Suffice it to say, we conclude that the probation condition was not properly imposed.
See State v. Keen, 

, 

 (2020)
(“We agree that the [probation] condition was not properly
imposed because it was not announced in open court.”).1
Therefore, the trial court erred in imposing the challenged
condition and we remand for resentencing. See 

           Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

    1
      We reject without written discussion the state’s alternative argument that
the trial court’s statement at the hearing that it was following the parties’ negotiations, viewed in light of the record, sufficiently communicated that it was imposing the challenged probation condition.