Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JACOB KURTIS DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
PER CURIAM
This appeal arises from a judgment revoking defendant's probation, sentencing him to jail time, and imposing $215 in court-appointed attorney fees. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by imposing attorney fees in the absence of evidence that he “is or may be able to pay” the fees. See ORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); see also ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred by imposing the attorney fees when the record is silent as to defendant's ability to pay them. We agree, and accept the state's concession. See State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant's ability to pay those fees). Furthermore, for the same reasons expressed in State v. Hunt, 271 Or App 347, 353, 350 P3d 521 (2015), we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. In particular, we conclude that the gravity of the error weighs in favor of correcting it. See State v. Brockway, 283 Or App 726, 391 P3d 980, rev den, 361 Or 524 (2017) (exer-cising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $200 in court-appointed attorney fees).
Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: A162604
Decided: January 10, 2018
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)