Opinion

State v. Daniel

  • 115 Or. App. 177
  • 836 P.2d 1366
  • 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1712
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Filed
Sep 9, 1992
Status
Published
On the bench
Richardson, P.J., and Deits and De Muniz
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 77.8%

The opinion

*178

PER CURIAM

Defendant pled guilty to manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. ORS 163.118(1)(a); ORS 161.610. She challenges the part of her sentence that requires her to repay $5,000 for court-appointed attorney fees. We affirm.

Defendant argues that the court did not inquire into her financial resources or her present or future ability to pay attorney fees, as required by ORS 161.665(3).

1

The state contends that defendant did not object and cannot, therefore, raise the issue on appeal.

Under ORS 161.665(1),(2), the court was authorized to impose payment of court appointed attorney fees as part of costs. On its face, defendant’s sentence is within that authority and any error is not “apparent on the face of the record.” ORAP 5.45(2);

see State v. Brown,

310 Or 347 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). Defendant did not object to the trial court’s failure to comply with ORS 161.665(3), and we decline to address her argument for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.

1

ORS

161.665(3)

provides:

“The court shall not sentence a defendant to pay costs unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them. In determining the amount and method of payment of costs, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose."

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.