State v. Morales

“[F]unds paid by and belonging to a third party cannot be the sole basis for a finding that a defendant has the 'ability to pay' court-ordered costs” because the trial court must still go through an inquiry to see if the defendant has the ability to pay fees or costs under ORS 161.665.

Petitioner appealed the trial court’s determination that payment for attorney’s fee should come from the security deposit his mother paid for bail absent any consideration of his ability to pay. Petitioned argued that the amount paid by another party should not the only source of resources the court takes into account when determining an ability to pay for costs or fees as “there is no evidence that the deposit was intended to be a gift or other transfer of money.” The State contended that when a person makes a security deposit for pretrial release of another, they sign a notice that notifies them that the Court can order  the security deposit to be applied to any monetary obligations imposed on the defendant. The trial court found Petitioner did not meet the “ability to pay requirement” but still imposed payment on the sole basis of the security. The Court found that “funds paid by and belonging to a third party cannot be the sole basis for a finding that a defendant has the “ability to pay” court-ordered costs.” This is because the trial court must still go through an inquiry to see if the defendant has the ability to pay fees or costs under ORS 161.665. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.