572 P.3d 329
Or. Ct. App.2025Background
- Defendant Daniel Shannon Severe was convicted of recklessly endangering another person and ordered to pay $11,021.86 in restitution.
- On appeal, Severe challenged a provision included in the supplemental judgment, which stated a fee of $50–$200 would be imposed for setting up a payment plan under ORS 1.202.
- Chief Justice Order (CJO) 21-043 currently sets the payment plan fee at $25, with a possibility of waiver based on financial circumstances.
- The State conceded the judgment provision was inconsistent with the applicable law.
- The State argued defendant's challenge was not ripe, as the fee had not actually been imposed yet; the defendant argued the error on the judgment's face directly affected his legal rights.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the misstatement in the judgment warranted reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the payment plan fee in the judgment accurate under ORS 1.202? | Fee as stated complies with statute | Fee misstates current law (should be $25 per CJO 21-043) | Judgment provision misstated the law; must be corrected. |
| Is the challenge to the fee provision justiciable/ripeness? | Not ripe until fee is actually imposed | Error on judgment’s face immediately affects debtor’s rights | Present effect; controversy is ripe for review. |
| Was defendant required to be present when provision added? | No procedural issue | Error to include provision without announcement in open court | No reversible error from lack of announcement if provision had been correct; error is because statement is wrong. |
| Can defendant raise this challenge for the first time on appeal? | Should challenge after imposition | Error first appears in written judgment, so proper to raise now | Defendant can challenge now due to appearance in judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. E. J., 316 Or App 537 (2021) (ripeness standard for present versus hypothetical harm)
- State v. Ciraulo, 301 Or App 849 (2020) (distinguishing between errors in judgment and later administrative actions)
- State v. DeCamp, 158 Or App 238 (1999) (right to be present depends on whether a change is substantive or administrative)
- State v. Baccaro, 300 Or App 131 (2019) (error in written judgment can be raised on appeal without preservation)