State v. Pfeifer

                                   390

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted May 4; portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay a $1000 DUII
 fine vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed August 10, 2022


                    STATE OF OREGON,
                     Plaintiff-Respondent,
                               v.
                 THOMAS EDWARD PFEIFER,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                  Grant County Circuit Court
                     19CR75681; A174759

  Gregory L. Baxter, Senior Judge. (Judgment November 9,
2020)
  Robert F. Nichols, Jr, Senior Judge. (Judgment September 18,
2020)
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Joel C. Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Pagán, Judge, and
Armstrong, Senior Judge.
   PAGÁN, J.
   Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay a $1000
DUII fine vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise
affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2022)                        391

          PAGÁN, J.
         Defendant appeals from a conviction of driving
under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) following a jury
trial. On appeal, he assigns error to the trial court’s determination that defendant voluntarily waived his right to testify on his own behalf. We reject that assignment without
further discussion except to say that after reviewing the
record we conclude that the trial court did not interfere with
defendant’s right to testify or create circumstances where
defendant’s choice to waive his right to testify was not voluntary or knowing.
         Additionally, defendant assigns separate error to
the trial court’s imposition of a $1,000 DUII fine and to the
imposition of a $255 intoxicant conviction fee. The state concedes error in the court’s determination that it did not have
authority to suspend some or all of the mandatory-minimum
DUII fine. For the reasons stated in State v. Colgrove, 

, 

, rev allowed, 

(2021), we agree that the trial court erred, and accept the
state’s concession as well taken.1
        We need not reach defendant’s assignment regarding the $255 intoxicant conviction fee imposed pursuant to
ORS 813.030, because defendant will have an opportunity at
resentencing to address that issue.
         Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay a
$1000 DUII fine vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.




   1
      The questions presented on review to the Oregon Supreme Court did not
implicate our analysis in Colgrove with respect to DUII fines and fees.