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. Stacey Ann DUYCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree theft, ORS 164.043, which is a Class C misdemeanor. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation, requiring her to pay a $100 fine and complete 48 hours of community service. Thereafter, the court found defendant in violation of her probation for failing to complete community service and amended the judgment to impose an additional fine of $1,500. Defendant did not object but argues on appeal that the court plainly erred in imposing the additional fine because, under ORS 161.635(1)(c), the maximum fine for a Class C misdemeanor is $1,250. The state concedes the error.
This court has concluded that imposition of a sentence that exceeds a statutory maximum constitutes plain error. See, e.g., State v. Snyder, 298 Or. App. 804, 447 P.3d 41, rev. den., 366 Or. 64, 455 P.3d 38 (2019) (exercising discretion to correct error where total length of sentence exceeded statutory maximum). This court also has corrected plain errors regarding the amount of a fine. See generally State v. Loudermilk, 288 Or. App. 88, 405 P.3d 195 (2017) (court erred in concluding that defendant was subject to mandatory minimum fine). Under the circumstance presented here, we conclude that the court plainly erred in imposing a fine in an amount greater than allowed under ORS 161.635(1)(c), and that the gravity of the error and the ends of justice weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to correct it. See generally Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 382-83, 823 P.2d 956 (1991) (setting out factors to consider in the exercise of discretion).
Portion of amended judgment imposing additional $1,500 fine vacated; remanded for resentencing; 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: A170331
Decided: October 07, 2020
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)