State v. Frick

A trial court errs when it imposes fines or fees in a written judgment that it did not include at the sentencing hearing. State v. Toombs, 302 Or App 173, 174, 460 P3d 533 (2020). Payment of fines or fees is allowed during a period of imprisonment if the court finds that the defendant has assets to pay the amounts; the defendant may challenge this finding in the trial court. ORS 161.675(1); State v. Ciraulo, 301 Or App 849, 459 P3d 960 (2020).

Defendant appealed fines associated with his conviction for DUII, reckless driving, and recklessly endangering another person. Defendant assigned error to the trial court imposing higher fines in its written judgment than at his sentencing hearing. Defendant also assigned error to the trial court authorizing collection of the fines while he was incarcerated. Defendant argued on appeal that the fines should be reduced to the amount announced at sentencing and that he should not be required to pay the fines while in prison. The State conceded that the court erred when it increased Defendant’s fines. A trial court errs when it imposes fines in excess of the amount stated at sentencing. State v. Toombs, 302 Or App 173, 174, 460 P3d 533 (2020). If a court finds that a defendant has the assets to pay a fine, the court may require the fine be paid during a term of imprisonment. ORS 161.675(1). A defendant may challenge the asset finding in the trial court. State v. Ciraulo, 301 Or App 849, 459 P3d 960 (2020). The Court agreed with the State’s concession on the amount of the fines but found that the asset issue should be taken up with the trial court. Thus, the Court held that the sections of Defendant’s judgment imposing fines must be vacated and remanded for resentencing.