344 ORAPP 605 - State v. Wolf

No. 954              October 29, 2025                  605

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
              BRANDON MICHAEL WOLF,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
               Curry County Circuit Court
                 22CR52819; A183791

  Cynthia Lynnae Beaman, Judge.
  Submitted July 9, 2025.
  Ernest Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
  JOYCE, J.
  Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
606                                                              State v. Wolf

           JOYCE, J.
         In this criminal case, defendant appeals from a
judgment convicting him of driving under the influence of
intoxicants (DUII) (Count 1) and finding him in violation of
his probation for unlawful possession of a firearm (Count 3).
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court (1) plainly
erred in imposing a $2,000 fine on Count 1 and (2) plainly
erred in imposing a $255 conviction fee on Count 1.1 The
state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in imposing
the $255 DUII conviction fee.
         We agree with and accept the state’s concession. The
record indicates that the trial court erroneously believed
that the fee was mandatory, overlooking its authority under
ORS 813.030(1) to waive all or part of the fee. Accordingly,
we remand for resentencing. See State v. Colgrove,

308 Or App 441, 444-46

480 P3d 1026

 (2021), aff’d on other grounds,

370 Or 474

521 P3d 456

 (2022) (remanding for resentencing
under similar circumstances). On remand, the trial court
should address whether to exercise its discretion to waive
all or part of the DUII conviction fee. Further, in light of the
disposition on that claim of error, we need not address defendant’s claim of error with respect to the $2,000 fine because
that issue can also be addressed on remand.
           Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.




     1
       Defendant also argues that the trial court plainly erred in finding that he
violated his probation on Count 3 and plainly erred in imposing DUII conditions
of probation on Count 3. Because defendant’s probation on that Count expired
during the pendency of this appeal, however, the parties agree that those claims
of error are moot. We also agree. See State v. Walraven,

282 Or App 649, 654

385 P3d 1178

 (2016) (“A case is moot when the court’s decision will no longer have a
practical effect on the rights or obligations of a party.” (Internal quotation marks
omitted.)).