State v. Skinner

230                February 26, 2025               No. 147

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
             AIMEE JANELLE SKINNER,
                Defendant-Appellant.
              Lane County Circuit Court
                23CR24166; A182931

  Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge.
  Submitted January 10, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Carla E. Edmondson, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, 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 Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  LAGESEN, C. J.
  Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                           231

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Defendant pleaded guilty to harassment constituting domestic violence, ORS 166.065(4), and a jury found her
guilty of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image, ORS
163.472. On appeal, defendant challenges a special condition of probation in the judgment that was not announced in
open court at sentencing. We remand for resentencing and
otherwise affirm.1
         The trial court sentenced defendant to 36 months
of probation and ordered, as a special condition of probation,
that she participate in random polygraph examinations.
However, the judgment of conviction provides that defendant must also pay for the expenses of the examinations.
That condition was not announced in open court at sentencing. The state concedes the error. We agree with and accept
the state’s concession. See State v. Ewing, 

, 

 (2022) (remanding for resentencing when
a probation condition in the judgment differed from the one
announced in court); see also State v. Anotta, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2020) (remanding for resentencing when some of the challenged probation
conditions were not announced in open court at sentencing).
           Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.