State v. Kanuch
Decision Date | 23 September 2009 |
Docket Number | 05CR0897,A138249. |
Citation | 231 Or. App. 20,217 P.3d 1082 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Brian Scott KANUCH, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General, and Karla H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and ORTEGA, Judge, and CARSON, Senior Judge.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for aggravated murder with a firearm. ORS 163.095. He assigns error to the trial court's entry of a money judgment for $15,000 in attorney fees as part of the sentence, arguing that the court failed to find that he has assets sufficient to pay all or part of that amount. We agree with defendant and vacate the portion of the judgment that requires defendant to pay attorney fees. We remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm.
The court replied that, "at this time I have no information before me as to any other potential assets the defendant might have, so the Court is going to impose the repayment of Court appointed attorney fees." At that point, the court did not say what amount would be imposed. And it is undisputed that there is no further information in the record about defendant's ability to pay any amount of attorney fees. When the judgment issued, it required defendant to pay attorney fees in the amount of $15,000.
On appeal, defendant's sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay attorney fees without determining that he had the ability to pay them. Defendant contends that the statutes authorizing an order to pay attorney fees require the court expressly to find that a defendant has the ability to pay them.
The state responds first by asserting that defendant failed to preserve his claim of error. According to the state, although it is clear that defendant objected to the order to pay attorney fees, defendant did not object specifically to the court's failure to make findings as to his ability to pay. As for the merits of defendant's assignment, the state acknowledges that "the record is minimal." Indeed, the state concedes that "the record does not reflect what defendant's financial resources might have been at the time of trial." The state nevertheless insists that the court did not err in ordering defendant to pay $15,000 in attorney fees because it "apparently took defendant's circumstances into account." The state does not identify what those "circumstances" are, however.
We begin with preservation. As the state acknowledges, defendant plainly objected at sentencing to the entry of an order to pay attorney fees. He more specifically objected that he lacked the resources to pay attorney fees. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay fees, both because the court failed to make required findings and because there is simply no evidence of his ability to pay them. While it may be debatable that defenda...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Belen, 12C47258
...in attorney fees. The state bears the burden of proving that a defendant "is or may be able to pay" attorney fees, State v. Kanuch, 231 Or.App. 20, 24, 217 P.3d 1082 (2009), and, here, the state presented no evidence that defendant possessed "assets sufficient to satisfy the award of fees o......
-
State v. Thomas
..., 262 Or. App. 169, 170-71, 324 P.3d 491 (2014) ; State v. Pendergrapht , 251 Or. App. 630, 284 P.3d 573 (2012) ; and State v. Kanuch , 231 Or. App. 20, 24, 217 P.3d 1082 (2009), defendant asserts that the trial court's imposition of fees was plainly erroneous for two distinct reasons: (1) ......
-
State v. Zepeda
...to impose court-appointed attorney fees “unless it has determined that the defendant ‘is or may be able to pay them.’ ” State v. Kanuch,231 Or.App. 20, 24, 217 P.3d 1082 (2009)(quoting ORS 161.665(4)). “There must be some information [in the record] from which the court can find the statuto......
-
State v. Folks
...may not sentence a defendant to pay costs without finding that defendant is or may be able to pay them); State v. Kanuch , 231 Or.App. 20, 24, 217 P.3d 1082 (2009) (same). We accept the state's concession and reverse the trial court's award of $3,627.30 in extradition costs.Portion of judgm......