State v. Youngs, 301 P.3d 976 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · Go Syfert
State v. Youngs, 301 P.3d 976 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent
v.
STEVEN MARK YOUNGS
C120585CR; A151218.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
May 22, 2013.
301 P.3d 976
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Lindsey Burrows, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant., Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Justice J. Rillera, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Armstrong, Egan, Nakamoto.
Published
PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted, based on a guilty plea, of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. ORS 475.894. The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 months’ formal probation and, as a condition of probation, ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s cell phone, which was seized during the investigation of the crime. On appeal, defendant contends — and the state concedes — that the court lacked authority to order forfeiture as a condition of probation. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See ORS 161.045(4) (“No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”); State v. Olson, 246 Or App 785, 786, 268 P3d 679 (2011), rev den, 352 Or 265 (2012) (finding no statute authorizing forfeiture as a condition of probation). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.