STATE v. MCQUISTON (2021)

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for reckless driving, ORS 811.140, and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315. On the resisting arrest conviction, the judgment also imposed a $500 “Chapter 163 assessment.” Defendant first raises on appeal an evidentiary issue; we reject his argument on that issue without discussion. Defendant also argues that the $500 assessment was imposed erroneously. The statute that authorized such an assessment, former ORS 137.290(2)(b) (2009), has long since been repealed. Defendant acknowledges that although this assessment appears in the judgment, it does not appear in the case register, but notes that this court nonetheless corrects such errors. The state concedes the error, and we accept that concession. The imposition of the fee was erroneous. See generally State v. Caro, 278 Or. App. 162, 373 P.3d 1223 (2016) (correcting similar error). And because a judgment is an enforceable “legal document with potential financial consequences to defendant,” the fact that the fees do not appear in the case register is immaterial. State v. Anotta, 312 Or. App. 220, 223, 493 P.3d 26 (2021), quoting State v. Williams, 280 Or. App. 631, 632 n. 1, 380 P.3d 1225, rev. den., 360 Or. 604, 385 P.3d 88 (2016).

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $500 Chapter 163 assessment reversed; otherwise affirmed.

PER CURIAM