STATE v. CIRAULO (2020)

In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant appeals from two judgments of conviction (Case Nos. 17CR72865 and 18CR39718). Defendant raises five assignments of error. We write to address in summary terms only defendant's third and fourth assignments of error.¹ As we discuss below, we reject those assignments and, consequently, affirm the judgments.

In his third and fourth assignments, defendant assigns error to the trial court's inclusion of the following text in the judgments:

“The court may increase the total amount owed by adding collection fees and other assessments. These fees and assessments may be added without further notice to the defendant and without further court order.

“* * * * *

“Payment of the fines, fees, assessments, and/or attorney's fees noted in this and any subsequent Money Award shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court pursuant to ORS 161.675.”

Defendant contends that ORS 161.675(1) and ORS 1.202(1) prohibited the court from adding those provisions to the judgments because the court did not find that defendant had the ability to pay the fines assessed in his cases. Defendant further contends that, after entry of the judgments, the clerk of the court imposed collection fees in violation of ORS 161.675(1).

Regarding defendant's legal argument challenging the text of the judgments, we rejected an identical argument in State v. Saunders, 298 Or. App. 291, 292-93, 447 P.3d 60 (2019), and State v. Lord, 301 Or. App. 653, 657, 458 P.3d 701 (2020). Regarding defendant's factual contention that the clerk has violated the law by adding collection fees post-judgment, we recently stated that, to the extent that defendant has evidence that the clerk is violating the law post-judgment, an appropriate course may be for defendant to challenge the clerk's actions in the trial court, through a writ of mandamus, or otherwise. Lord, 301 Or. App. at 657 n. 5, 458 P.3d 703; see also ORS 1.025(3) (stating that, where a duty is imposed by law on a clerk or judicial officer, that duty “may be enforced by writ of mandamus”); ORS 161.675(3) (stating that “[a] schedule of payments shall be reviewed by the court upon motion of the defendant at any time, so long as the obligation remains unsatisfied”). We, therefore, reject defendant's third and fourth assignments of error.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We reject without further written discussion defendant's remaining assignments of error. This includes our rejection of defendant's fifth assignment of error, raised in supplemental briefing, that contends that the trial court erred in Case No. 17CR72865 when it instructed the jury that it could return a nonunanimous verdict.

PER CURIAM