State v. TapiaState v. Tapia
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kasey Anne Hooker, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.*
LAGESEN, C. J.
Portion of judgment requiring payment of per diem fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.
Defendant entered a conditional no contest plea to driving under the influence of intoxicants. The trial court sentenced defendant to probation. The judgment of conviction provides that defendant shall pay any required per diem fees, but that requirement to pay per diem fees was not announced in open court at sentencing. Defendant assigns error to the inclusion of that provision in the judgment. The state concedes the error. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. Because the trial court stated at sentencing that it was not imposing any fines or fees, we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment that does not contain the per diem fee provision rather than remanding for resentencing, as we otherwise would do. See State v. Debruyne, 347 Or App 421, 423, 587 P3d 433 (2026) (when sentencing court stated it was not imposing fees, remedy for inclusion of per diem fees in judgment was to remand for entry of judgment omitting that provision rather than resentencing).
Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment deleting provision requiring payment of per diem fees; otherwise affirmed.