State v. Scott

Under State v. Morales, 367 Or 222, 476 P3d 954 (2020), “when a non-spouse third party posts security for the benefit of a defendant, the security funds cannot be considered when determining a defendant’s ability to pay attorney fees unless the record demonstrates that the deposit carried a donative intent or was actually of the defendant’s own money.”

Defendant appealed a conviction of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer and resisting arrest. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s finding that he must pay fees for his court-appointed attorney. Defendant argued this assignment is plain error, and the record does not support he has the ability to pay attorney fees. Under State v. Morales, 367 Or 222, 476 P3d 954 (2020), “when a non-spouse third party posts security for the benefit of a defendant, the security funds cannot be considered when determining a defendant’s ability to pay attorney fees unless the record demonstrates that the deposit carried a donative intent or was actually of the defendant’s own money.” The court held that because Petitioner’s mother’s deposit was made with "donative intent", the funds should not be taken in account during the determination of whether Defendant is able to pay attorney's fee. Thus, the trial court erred in assessing attorney fees. Judgment requiring Petitioner to pay attorney fees is reversed; otherwise affirmed.