344 ORAPP 575 - State v. Turner

No. 944 October 29, 2025 575

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
TANNER ROY TURNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Yamhill County Circuit Court
22CR05640; A185335

Ladd J. Wiles, Judge.
Submitted September 12, 2025.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
576 State v. Turner

LAGESEN, C. J.
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of mail theft
or receipt of stolen mail, ORS 164.162. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years of probation. The judgment
provides that defendant shall pay any required per diem
fees and imposes special conditions of probation. Defendant
challenges the requirement that he pay per diem fees and
several of the special conditions of probation on the ground
that they were not announced in open court at sentencing.
The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing
the requirement that defendant pay per diem fees without
announcing that requirement in open court and argues
that, on remand for resentencing, the trial court can also
address any issues with the special conditions of probation.
We agree with and accept the state’s concession. We
remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm.1
“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.” State v. Priester,

325 Or App 574, 581

530 P3d 118

, rev den,

371 Or 332

 (2023) (internal citations omitted). Here, the trial court erred in imposing the requirement
to pay a per diem fee in the judgment because it was not
announced at sentencing, and the appropriate remedy is a
remand for resentencing. See State v. Barr,

331 Or App 242, 244

545 P3d 772

, rev den,

372 Or 720

 (2024) (remanding for
resentencing when requirement to pay per diem fees was
not announced in open court at sentencing); see also State
v. Anotta,

302 Or App 176

460 P3d 543

, rev den,

366 Or 552

 (2020) (concluding that remand for resentencing is the
appropriate remedy when a trial court errs by imposing a
special condition of probation without announcing it in open
court at sentencing); see also generally State v. Johnston,

176 Or App 418, 428

31 P3d 1101, 1106

 (2001) (construing ORS
169.151 in the context of conditions of probation).
          Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


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