State v. Larson

“[W]hen it is clear from the record that a condition of probation is to take effect immediately, the validity of the condition does not depend on entry of the judgment.” State v. Quackenbush, 116 Or App 453, 455-56, 841 P2d 671 (1992).

Defendant was convicted of DUII under ORS 813.010, and thereby subjected to judicially imposed fines as part of a probationary sentence. Defendant was later resentenced, at which time the trial judge suspended the fines. That amended judgment was signed but not entered. A second resentencing ensued at which another trial judge declined to suspend Defendant’s fines. Defendant appealed and assigned as error the trial court’s imposition of the fines. Defendant argued that the fines became operable as conditions of his first sentence and therefore were not modifiable despite the lack of entry regarding the first judgment. “[W]hen it is clear from the record that a condition of probation is to take effect immediately, the validity of the condition does not depend on entry of the judgment.” State v. Quackenbush, 116 Or App 453, 455-56, 841 P2d 671 (1992). The Court held that suspension of Defendant’s fines was conditioned upon Defendant’s compliance with his probationary sentence. Therefore, because defendant did comply with his sentence and because the sentence had been served prior to the second resentencing hearing, the fines were not modifiable. Amended judgment dated June 7, 2019, reversed; remanded for entry of amended judgment signed on February 23, 2018.