STATE v. BRUNSON (2020)

Defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal trespass. ORS 164.245. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in two ways: by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, and by including in the judgment of conviction, in addition to a jail sentence, a “sentencing instruction” that defendant not enter the property on which he had trespassed. We reject defendant's challenge to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal without further discussion. With respect to the sentencing instruction, the state concedes that the court erred in imposing that condition and that the error requires correction. We agree.

When a trial court imposes a sentence of incarceration, it lacks authority to impose additional conditions in the form of “sentence instructions,” as the trial court did here. See State v. Hall, 282 Or. App. 9, 385 P.3d 1225 (2016), rev. den., 360 Or. 752, 388 P.3d 725 (2017) (court lacked authority to impose condition concerning contact with victim in addition to term of imprisonment); State v. Langmayer, 239 Or. App. 600, 244 P.3d 894 (2010) (same). We routinely have exercised our discretion to correct similar errors as plain error. See Hall, 282 Or. App. at 11, 385 P.3d 1225; State v. Rubio/Galligan, 248 Or. App. 130, 139-40, 273 P.3d 238, rev. den., 352 Or. 107, 284 P.3d 485 (2012) (same). For the reasons set forth in Hall, we exercise our discretion to correct the error here.

Remanded for entry of judgment omitting erroneous “sentencing instruction” term; otherwise affirmed.

PER CURIAM