State v. Nutt, 360 P.3d 636

Defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted DUII, a Class B misdemeanor.
Sentencing included a $750 fine, $173 attorney fees, a $100 bench probation assessment, and a $60 Mandatory State Amt.
The written judgment listed financial obligations under Monetary Terms and Money Award.
Trial court indicated at sentencing that the financial obligation was a $750 fine and separately noted the $60 amount.
Plaintiff challenges focus on the $60 Mandatory State Amt as unauthorized by statute.
Court reverses the $60 Mandatory State Amt, affirming all other aspects of the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether empaneling a jury of fewer than 10 violated law	State argues Sagdal forecloses appeal.	Duncan relies on Sagdal to reject the argument.	Sagdal controls; assignments rejected without further discussion.
Whether the Mandatory State Amt was lawfully imposed	State concedes possible error but favors remand to clarify intent.	Duncan contends no statutory basis for the $60 amount.	Imposition of the $60 Mandatory State Amt was unauthorized; reversal required.
Proper remedy for the unauthorized obligation	State suggests remand to clarify whether it was a fine.	Duncan argues only the $60 amount should be removed; rest affirmed.	Remedy is to reverse the $60; otherwise affirm; not remand for clarification.

State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780 (2015) (reversed $60 mandatory state amount when improper)
State v. Pranzetti, 269 Or App 410 (2015) (similar rejection of unauthorized mandatory state amount)
State v. Lewis, 236 Or App 49 (2010) (preservation not required when error announced in judgment)
State v. DeCamp, 158 Or App 238 (1999) (preservation considerations for trial court actions)
State v. Beckham, 253 Or App 609 (2012) (review of misdemeanor sentences; statutory authority issues)
State v. Sagdal, 356 Or 639 (2015) (jury size issues foreclosed appeal)