State v. Fowler, 252 P.3d 302

Defendant Fowler was convicted by a 10–2 jury verdict of manufacturing marijuana and 11–1 verdict of supplying contraband; the trial court sentenced her to 20 days in jail and 24 months of supervised probation.
At sentencing, the state sought reimbursement of $9,731.25 for witness transportation costs; the court reserved ruling and later allocated $4,938.70 at a subsequent hearing.
The court entered a general judgment on October 8, 2008, and later entered a supplemental judgment on October 24, 2008 ordering payment of the witness costs.
Defense counsel was told the transportation-cost order would be added in an amended judgment and that appeal time would start from that point; Fowler’s initial appeal identified the October 8 general judgment.
Fowler filed a timely notice of appeal on November 4, 2008 from the October 8 general judgment, but did not appeal the October 24, 2008 supplemental judgment until an amended notice on December 16, 2008.
The Court of Appeals affirmed both judgments; the Supreme Court granted review to address whether the supplemental judgment was reviewable, and whether Fowler timely appealed it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fowler timely appealed the supplemental judgment.	Fowler argues the supplemental judgment was timely via ORS 138.071(4) or 138.083; timely notice should attach to the supplemental judgment.	State contends no timely notice of appeal from the supplemental judgment was filed; amended notice was untimely.	The Court held lack of jurisdiction over the supplemental judgment due to untimely appeal.
Whether the nonunanimous jury verdict violated the Sixth Amendment.	Fowler contends the nonunanimous verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury.	State argues the issue fell within the general judgment, which Fowler timely appealed.	The Court addressed the issue but its decision focused on jurisdiction over the supplemental judgment; the nonunanimous verdict issue was encompassed by the timely appeal of the general judgment.
Whether the imposition of witness transportation costs violated constitutional rights.	Fowler asserts confrontation rights under Article I, section 11, and the Sixth Amendment barred the costs.	State maintains the ruling fell within the supplemental judgment appealed from by Fowler.	Because Fowler failed to timely appeal the supplemental judgment, the issue was not properly before the Court of Appeals.

Snider v. Production Chemical Manufacturing, Inc., 348 Or. 257 (2010) (permits review of intermediate orders affecting the judgment appealed from)
State v. Ainsworth, 346 Or. 524 (2009) (untimely filing does not excuse delay when relying on mistake)
Stahl v. Krasowski, 281 Or. 33 (1978) (identification of the specific judgment appealed from is jurisdictional)
Zacker v. North Tillamook County Hospital Dist., 312 Or. 330 (1991) (continued validity of Stahl rule regarding notice of appeal)
State v. Harding, 347 Or. 368 (2009) (timeliness and jurisdictional requirements for notices of appeal)
State v. Ferman-Velasco, 333 Or. 422 (2002) (reserved issue regarding review of certain appellate questions)