State v. Vega-Arrieta

• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: State v. Vega-Arrieta, 279 Or App 609, 381 P.3d 1049 (Or. App. 2016)
• Decision Date: 20 July 2016
• Docket Number: A157649
• Parties: State of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. David Daniel Vega–Arrieta, Defendant–Appellant.

279 Or.App. 609

381 P.3d 1049

State of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.David Daniel Vega–Arrieta, Defendant–Appellant.

A157649

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted April 28, 2016.

July 20, 2016

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for four counts of sodomy in the first degree, ORS 163.405, and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427. He was sentenced to a total of 25 years in prison and lifetime post-prison supervision, and ordered to pay, among other amounts, $3,095 in court-appointed attorney fees. We write only to address defendant's assignments of error pertaining to the trial court's refusal to disclose to defendant certain confidential records after reviewing them in camera and the imposition of attorney fees.

Defendant sought pretrial discovery of confidential Department of Human Services (DHS) and CARES Northwest records pertaining to the victim, which, according to defendant, may have contained either exculpatory or impeachment evidence. The trial court subpoenaed the records and, after reviewing them in camera , ordered that they would not be disclosed to the parties. The trial court then sealed the records for appellate review. On appeal, defendant requests that we conduct a separate in camera review to determine whether the trial court erred when it refused to disclose the records. Having undertaken such a review, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it ordered that the records would not be disclosed to the parties.

Defendant also assigns error to the trial court's imposition of court-appointed attorney fees in the amount of $3,095. Defendant acknowledges that he did not preserve his claim of error but asks us to exercise our discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) to correct the error as plain error because the record contains no evidence to support a finding that defendant “is or may be able” to pay the fees. See ORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay...