State v. Machado, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 515

Consolidated appeal involving three appeals (A158365, A158366, A158367); only A158366 is at issue here.
In A158366 defendant was convicted of felony strangulation (domestic violence) under ORS 163.187(4).
The written judgment imposed a $1,690 fine and separately listed a $60 “Mandatory State Amt” that did not appear in the oral sentencing.
Defendant did not object at trial, but preservation was not required because the $60 charge first appeared only in the written judgment.
The legal question was whether the trial court had statutory authority to impose a separate $60 mandatory state amount apart from the fine.
The state conceded the court erred; the appellate court reversed the portion of the judgment imposing the $60 and affirmed the remainder and the other consolidated appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had statutory authority to impose a separate $60 “Mandatory State Amt.”	ORS 153.633 directs that the first $60 of any fine goes to the state but does not authorize a separate $60 fee; therefore a separate assessment is improper.	The written judgment’s separate $60 charge reflects a misunderstanding of ORS 153.633 and is unlawful.	Trial court lacked authority to impose a separate $60 charge; that portion of the judgment reversed.

State v. Lewis, 236 Or. App. 49 (Or. App. 2010) (no preservation required where sentence element first appears in written judgment)
State v. DeCamp, 158 Or. App. 238 (Or. App. 1999) (no contemporaneous objection required when defendant had no notice of trial court’s action)
State v. Beckham, 253 Or. App. 609 (Or. App. 2012) (standard of review for question whether court exceeded statutory authority)
State v. Lindemann, 272 Or. App. 780 (Or. App. 2015) (trial court may not impose separate $60 fee)
State v. Nutt, 274 Or. App. 217 (Or. App. 2015) (same conclusion disallowing separate $60 assessment)