State v. Lord, 458 P.3d 701

Consolidated appeal from two Washington County convictions; trial court sentenced Lord to incarceration and $1,800 in fines ($200 per count).
Both judgments contained the clause: “Payment of the fines
- shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court pursuant to ORS 161.675.” One judgment also noted "$ to DOR" (Department of Revenue).
The court made no on-the-record finding of Lord’s ability to pay before directing the clerk to schedule payments.
Lord contended that the scheduling language (and a $200 "transaction assessment" shown in the case register) meant the clerk/DOR would attempt to collect while he was incarcerated in violation of ORS 161.675(1).
The Court of Appeals relied on precedent holding that, when a judgment directs the clerk to act pursuant to a statute, courts assume the clerk (and DOR) will follow the statute; the record did not clearly establish that the $200 assessment was an unlawful collection fee or that removing the scheduling language would cure any error. Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether directing the clerk to schedule payment pursuant to ORS 161.675 without an on‑the‑record ability‑to‑pay finding unlawfully authorized collection during incarceration	Judgment does not require payment while imprisoned; no record evidence clerk will violate ORS 161.675	Scheduling language and lack of ability‑to‑pay finding authorized collection during incarceration in violation of ORS 161.675(1)	Rejected. Court follows State v. Foos: assume clerk will act in accordance with statute; same assumption extended to DOR; no reversible error.
Whether the case register’s $200 “transaction assessment” shows the clerk charged an unlawful collection fee while defendant was incarcerated	If clerk acted unlawfully, defendant can obtain relief, but record does not conclusively show clerk violated statute	The $200 entry is a collection fee imposed while defendant was incarcerated, demonstrating statutory violation	Rejected. Court cited State v. Saunders and Partain; record does not conclusively show the assessment is an ORS 1.202 collection fee and removal of scheduling language may not remedy the asserted error; appropriate recourse is motion in trial court or mandamus.

State v. Foos, 295 Or. App. 116 (2018) (holding judgments directing clerks to schedule payments under ORS 161.675 are not reversible because clerks are presumed to follow the statute)
State v. Saunders, 298 Or. App. 291 (2019) (rejecting argument that clerk’s collection actions required reversal where statute governs collection procedures)
State v. Partain, 298 Or. App. 492 (2019) (citing Saunders to reject an argument identical to defendant’s)