State v. Morrison

524                   April 2, 2025              No. 307

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
          MICHAEL ANTHONY MORRISON,
                Defendant-Appellant.
           Washington County Circuit Court
                22CR25157; A181650

  Brandon M. Thompson, Judge.
  Submitted February 25, 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 Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
   Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
   Conviction affirmed; portion of judgment imposing probation conditions not announced in open court vacated;
remanded for resentencing.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)           525

        PER CURIAM
         In this criminal case, defendant appeals from a
judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of
intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, entered after a jury trial.
He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to
suppress and to probation conditions imposed in the judgment that were not announced in open court. We conclude
that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion
to suppress but agree with defendant and the state’s concession that the trial court erred in imposing probation conditions not announced in open court. We therefore affirm
defendant’s conviction and reverse defendant’s sentence and
remand for resentencing.
         In his first assignment of error, defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress
non-Mirandized statements he made to police at the scene
of his crashed vehicle, contending that the trial court erred
in determining that he was not in compelling circumstances
when he voluntarily answered two officers’ questions. We
have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court
did not err in determining that defendant was not in compelling circumstances at the time he answered the officers’
questions; therefore, Miranda warnings were not required,
and the court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to
suppress. State v. Roble-Baker, 

, 

(2006) (Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution protects a person’s right against compelled self-incrimination
and requires Miranda warnings before the police interrogate a person “who is in full custody or in circumstances
that create a setting which judges would and officers should
recognize to be compelling.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
         In his second through seventh assignments, defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to “enhanced bench probation” and imposing an “alcohol package” without specifying the conditions encompassed
by either phrase and then in listing several conditions in
the judgment that were not announced in open court. The
state concedes that, because the court did not enumerate in
open court what probation conditions it would impose, the
526                                         State v. Morrison

court erred by including those terms in the judgment and
that the case must be remanded for resentencing. State v.
Priester, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2023) (“A criminal defendant has the right to have
their sentence announced in open court.”). We agree with
and accept the state’s concession that the trial court erred in
failing to announce defendant’s probation conditions in open
court, and we therefore remand for resentencing.
        Conviction affirmed; portion of judgment imposing
probation conditions not announced in open court vacated;
remanded for resentencing.