State v. Weingart

422                  January 8, 2025               No. 39

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                STATE OF OREGON

                STATE OF OREGON,
                 Plaintiff-Respondent,
                           v.
          CHRISTOPHER WADE WEINGART,
                Defendant-Appellant.
           Washington County Circuit Court
                22CR25234; A181632

  Eric Butterfield, Judge.
  Submitted November 20, 2024.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Nora Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce,
Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)             423

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and
reckless driving, ORS 811.140, and sentenced to probation
on both counts. At sentencing, the court announced that
defendant would be subject to “a drug package, an alcohol
package” as conditions of probation, and it identified some
specific conditions in open court (abstaining from the use
or possession of illegal controlled substances, alcohol, and
marijuana; getting an evaluation and complying with recommended treatment; and attending a victim impact panel).
The court then entered a judgment that included a number of special conditions of probation that had not been
announced, including that defendant submit to a polygraph
examination at the request of a supervising officer and that
defendant not knowingly associate with persons who use or
possess controlled substances illegally.
         On appeal, in three assignments of error, defendant challenges the special conditions that appeared for
the first time in the judgment. He argues that the court
erred by imposing conditions in the judgment that it did not
announce at sentencing, that the court also erred in imposing the polygraph condition because he was not convicted of
a sexual offense, and that the court also erred in imposing
the association condition because it is overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.
         The state concedes that the court erred in failing to
announce at sentencing all of the conditions included in the
judgment and that the case should be remanded for resentencing on that basis. See State v. Priester, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2023) (“A criminal
defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in
open court. A trial court commits reversible error if it does
not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” (Internal
citations omitted.)). We agree and remand on that basis. As
for defendant’s second and third assignments of error, we
decline to address those issues, instead leaving it to the trial
court to consider in the first instance defendant’s arguments
regarding those conditions. See State v. Anotta, 

                                       State v. Weingart

176, 177 & n 1, 

, rev den, 

 (2020) (similar disposition).
        Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.