STATE v. DAVIS (2021)

Defendant appeals a judgment in which the trial court revoked his probation and imposed a $25 probation-violation fee. Defendant admitted the violation and does not take issue with the revocation itself. Rather, defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing the fee in the judgment, as it was not announced in open court. The state concedes that the court erred by imposing a $25 probation-violation fee for the first time in the judgment. See State v. Hillman, 293 Or. App. 231, 233, 426 P.3d 249 (2018) (trial court erred in imposing $25 probation-violation fee not announced in open court). We agree and accept the state's concession.

Defendant suggests that the proper remedy is to simply reverse the portion of the judgment imposing the fee. The state argues that the proper remedy is to remand for resentencing. As our more recent case law explains, the correct remedy here is to vacate the fee and remand for resentencing. See State v. Vierria, 307 Or. App. 46, 48, 476 P.3d 506 (2020) (appropriate remedy for imposition of probation-violation fee not announced in open court is to remand for resentencing, giving the defendant the option to argue for waiver of the mandatory fee, or to make arguments concerning payment options).

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay probation-violation fee vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

PER CURIAM