State v. Lindemann, 358 P.3d 328 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Lindemann, 358 P.3d 328 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Hodges (orctapp, 2017-04-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" State v. Hodges (3×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780 , 358 P3d 328 , rev den, 358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state concession that imposition of $60 mandatory state amount was in error because there is no statutory authority to impose that monetary award).
examined Cited "see" State v. Spence (3×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780 , 358 P3d 328 , rev den, 358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state concession that imposition of $60 mandatory state amount was in error because no statutory authority exists to impose that monetary award).
examined Cited "see" State v. Mryczko (3×)
Lincoln Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780, 781 , 358 P3d 328 , rev den, 358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state’s concession that the trial court erred in imposing “a $60 ‘mandatory state amount’ for each” count of conviction).
examined Cited "see" State v. Wiggins (3×)
Douglas Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780, 781 , 358 P3d 328 , rev den, 358 Or 248 (2015) (accepting state’s concession that the trial court erred in imposing "a $60 'mandatory state amount’ for each” count of conviction).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Sasser (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Lindemann, 272 Or App 780 , 358 P3d 328 (2015) (accepting state concession that trial court erred in imposing $60 “mandatory state amount” because the court lacked statutory authority to impose those fees); State v. Wills, 260 Or App 440 , 317 P3d 407 (2013) (accepting state concession that trial court erred in imposing unitary assessment because former ORS 137.290(2)(b) (2009) was no longer in effect when the defendant was sentenced).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent
v.
HENRY A. LINDEMANN, aka Heinz Lindemann
131354; A155636.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Aug 12, 2015.
358 P.3d 328
2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 962
✓ 358 Or. 248
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant., Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Susan Reid, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Devore, Garrett, Ortega.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged, ORS 811.700; failure to appear on a criminal citation, ORS 133.076; and second-degree failure to appear, ORS 162.195. We reject without written discussion defendant’s first and second assignments of error and write only to address his third assignment, which challenges the trial court’s imposition of a $60 “mandatory state amount” for each conviction. Defendant points out that the trial court imposed fines of $500 or $250 for each conviction, as allowed by ORS 153.633, and argues that there is no statutory authority to separately impose additional fines.[1] The state concedes that the $60 “mandatory state amount” fees were imposed in error. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 for each conviction.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $60 for each conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.

1

OES 153.633(1) provides:

“In any criminal action in a circuit court in which a fine is imposed, the lesser of the following amounts is payable to the state before any other distribution of the fine is made:
“(a) $60; or
“(b) The amount of the fine if the fine is less than $60.”

Defendant observes that the statute does not provide authority for the trial court to impose a fee but, rather, directs the first $60 (or the entire fine if less than $60) of whatever fine is imposed to be paid to the state.