State v. Velasquez-Orozco
Citation | 398 P.3d 501,285 Or.App. 881 |
Decision Date | 01 June 2017 |
Docket Number | A160337 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Selvyn Julian VELASQUEZ-OROZCO, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Haselton, Senior Judge.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree sodomy, ORS 163.405, three counts of second-degree sodomy, ORS 163.395, and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, raising two assignments of error. We reject without discussion defendant's second assignment of error, and write to address his first assignment of error. In that assignment, defendant, who was sentenced to a total of 325 months in prison, challenges the trial court's imposition of $2,030 in extradition costs.1 He asserts that the court failed to make a finding regarding his ability to pay those costs and that, in any event, the record would not support a finding that he is or may be able to pay them. See ORS 161.665(4) (); State v. Pendergrapht , 251 Or.App. 630, 633, 284 P.3d 573 (2012) ( ); see also State v. Kanuch , 231 Or.App. 20, 24, 217 P.3d 1082 (2009) ( ). Although the asserted error in unpreserved, defendant urges us to review and correct it as plain error. See ORAP 5.45(1).
We agree with defendant that the record does not show that the state met its burden of demonstrating that he "is or may be able" to pay the costs and that, therefore, the trial court's error in imposing the costs was plain. See State v. Coverstone , 260 Or.App. 714, 716, 320 P.3d 670 (2014) ( ); see also State v. Hunt , 271 Or.App. 347, 352, 350 P.3d 521 (2015) ( ).
Furthermore, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error under the circumstances of this case. See Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc. , 312 Or. 376, 382, 382 n. 6, 823 P.2d 956 (1991). In our view, the error is grave in light of the substantial amount of costs ordered and the lengthy prison term to which defendant was sentenced. See Coverstone , 260 Or.App. at 716-17, 320 P.3d 670 ( ); see also State v. Fleet , 270 Or.App. 246, 247, 347 P.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial