Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.286

Minimum fines for misdemeanors and felonies; retention of jurisdiction

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      137.286 Minimum fines for misdemeanors and felonies; retention of jurisdiction. (1) Unless a specific minimum fine is provided by law, the minimum fine for a misdemeanor is $100.

      (2) Unless a specific minimum fine is provided by law, the minimum fine for a felony is $200.

      (3) A court may waive payment of the minimum fine established by this section, in whole or in part, if the court finds that requiring payment of the minimum fine would be inconsistent with justice in the case. In making its determination under this subsection, the court shall consider:

      (a) The financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of the minimum fine will impose, with due regard to the other obligations of the defendant; and

      (b) The extent to which that burden can be alleviated by allowing the defendant to pay the monetary obligations imposed by the court on an installment basis or on other conditions to be fixed by the court.

      (4) This section does not affect the manner in which a court imposes or reduces monetary obligations other than fines.

      (5) During any period of supervision that is part of the defendant’s sentence, the court retains jurisdiction under this subsection for the limited purpose of waiving any unpaid portion of a fine previously imposed if the defendant is able to establish a financial hardship that prevents the defendant from completing an alcohol or drug treatment program that was required as a condition of supervision. Any moneys received in payment of the fine prior to the waiver may not be returned to the defendant. [2011 c.597 §10; 2015 c.186 §1]

 

      137.288 [Formerly 137.293; renumbered 137.143 in 2013]

 

      137.289 [2011 c.597 §33; 2013 c.685 §21; renumbered 137.146 in 2013]

 

      137.290 [1987 c.905 §1; 1991 c.460 §14; 1993 c.33 §300; 1993 c.637 §1; 1993 c.770 §§1,3; 1995 c.555 §1; 1997 c.872 §27; 1999 c.1051 §127; 1999 c.1056 §1d; 1999 c.1095 §6; 2003 c.737 §112; 2003 c.819 §11; 2005 c.843 §21; 2007 c.899 §§1,2; repealed by 2011 c.597 §118]

 

      Note: Section 1 (2), chapter 89, Oregon Laws 2012, provides:

      Sec. 1. (2) The repeal of ORS 137.290 by section 118, chapter 597, Oregon Laws 2011, applies to an offense only if the offense was committed on or after January 1, 2012, or, if the offense was committed before January 1, 2012, if the offense arises from the actions of a person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense and who was not waived to circuit court for prosecution as an adult under ORS 419C.340. Except as provided in this section, any offense committed before January 1, 2012, shall continue to be governed by ORS 137.290 as in effect immediately before January 1, 2012, and all amounts collected as a unitary assessment for offenses committed before January 1, 2012, shall be deposited in the Criminal Fine Account. [2012 c.89 §1(2); 2021 c.597 §36a(2)]

 

      137.291 [2011 c.597 §34; 2013 c.685 §22; renumbered 137.149 in 2013]

 

      137.292 [2011 c.597 §35; 2013 c.685 §23; renumbered 137.153 in 2013]

 

      137.293 [1987 c.905 §2; 2011 c.597 §123; renumbered 137.288 in 2011]

 

      137.294 [2011 c.597 §36; 2013 c.685 §24; renumbered 137.155 in 2013]

 

      137.295 [1987 c.905 §3; 1991 c.460 §13; 1993 c.33 §301; 1995 c.782 §3; 1997 c.761 §10; 1999 c.1051 §128; 1999 c.1064 §1; 2001 c.823 §§22,23; 2003 c.687 §§2,3; 2005 c.564 §§4,5; 2007 c.626 §2; 2007 c.899 §§3,4; repealed by 2011 c.597 §118]

 

      137.296 [2011 c.597 §37; 2013 c.685 §25; renumbered 137.157 in 2013]

 

      137.297 [2011 c.597 §38; 2013 c.685 §26; renumbered 137.159 in 2013]

 

(Criminal Fine Account)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: State v. Moreno-Hernandez
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Moreno-Hernandez (2019) or · cites it 2× “103(4) requires that the victim have " suffered *** economic damages" (emphasis added) and ORS 31.”
State v. Seck (2020) orctapp · cites it 7× “Wheeler, 268 Or App 729 , 344 P3d 57 (2015), defendant contends that “ORS 137.286, in combination with ORS 161.”
State v. Cid (2021) orctapp · cites it 2× “In his opening brief on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing a $200 crim- inal fine on each count of conviction, based on the court’s erroneous understanding that imposition of the fines was mandatory.”
State v. Shipley (2020) orctapp · cites it 5× “45(1), argu- ing that the statute that requires a $200 felony fine, ORS 137.286 (a court “may waive” the minimum fine “if the court finds that requiring payment of the minimum fine would be inconsistent with justice,” and that a court “shall consider” a defendant’s ability to…”
State v. Manoff (2019) orctapp · cites it 2× “645(1), provides that, "[i]n determining whether to impose a fine and its amount, the court shall consider *** [t]he financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of a fine will impose, with due regard to the other obligations of the defendant[.”
State v. Manning (2019) orctapp “In his two remaining assignments of error, defen- dant argues that the trial court plainly erred by imposing witness fees without evidence to support a finding about his ability to pay them, and that the court also plainly erred when it concluded that statutory fines on the…”
State v. Shepherd (2020) orctapp “010, given differences between ORS 137.286 (regarding mandatory minimum fines generally) and ORS 813.”
State v. Brooks (2017) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 137.286 has been amended since defendant was sentenced; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
State v. Seidel (2018) orctapp · cites it 3× “The state concedes, and we agree, that the trial court did plainly err in understanding its authority to decide whether to impose the fine.”
State v. Herring (2025) orctapp · cites it 5× “Manning, 300 Or App 390, 391 , 453 P3d 946 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 292 (2020) (exercising discretion to correct the trial court’s plain error in imposing statutory fines on felony counts under ORS 137.286 based on the mis- taken belief that the fines were “mandatory”).”
State v. Semore (2019) orctapp · cites it 2× “182, and the imposition of a $100 traffic fine under ORS 137.286(1). As a result of the conviction, the trial court also found defendant in violation of the terms of his probation relating to an unrelated, prior conviction.”
State v. Davidson (2025) orctapp “See ORS 137.286(2) (the minimum fine for a felony is $200).”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.286(1) — 3 cases
State v. Shipley (2020) orctapp “45(1), argu- ing that the statute that requires a $200 felony fine, ORS 137.286 (a court “may waive” the minimum fine “if the court finds that requiring payment of the minimum fine would be inconsistent with justice,” and that a court “shall consider” a defendant’s ability to…”
State v. Semore (2019) orctapp “182, and the imposition of a $100 traffic fine under ORS 137.286(1). As a result of the conviction, the trial court also found defendant in violation of the terms of his probation relating to an unrelated, prior conviction.”
State v. McKerrall (2020) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.286(2) — 11 cases
State v. Moreno-Hernandez (2019) or “103(4) requires that the victim have " suffered *** economic damages" (emphasis added) and ORS 31.”
State v. Cid (2021) orctapp “In his opening brief on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing a $200 crim- inal fine on each count of conviction, based on the court’s erroneous understanding that imposition of the fines was mandatory.”
State v. Manoff (2019) orctapp “645(1), provides that, "[i]n determining whether to impose a fine and its amount, the court shall consider *** [t]he financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of a fine will impose, with due regard to the other obligations of the defendant[.”
State v. Seck (2020) orctapp “Wheeler, 268 Or App 729 , 344 P3d 57 (2015), defendant contends that “ORS 137.286, in combination with ORS 161.”
State v. Shipley (2020) orctapp “45(1), argu- ing that the statute that requires a $200 felony fine, ORS 137.286 (a court “may waive” the minimum fine “if the court finds that requiring payment of the minimum fine would be inconsistent with justice,” and that a court “shall consider” a defendant’s ability to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.286(3) — 11 cases
State v. Moreno-Hernandez (2019) or “103(4) requires that the victim have " suffered *** economic damages" (emphasis added) and ORS 31.”
State v. Cid (2021) orctapp “In his opening brief on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing a $200 crim- inal fine on each count of conviction, based on the court’s erroneous understanding that imposition of the fines was mandatory.”
State v. Manoff (2019) orctapp “645(1), provides that, "[i]n determining whether to impose a fine and its amount, the court shall consider *** [t]he financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of a fine will impose, with due regard to the other obligations of the defendant[.”
State v. Brooks (2017) orctapp “ORS 137.286 has been amended since defendant was sentenced; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
State v. Seck (2020) orctapp “Wheeler, 268 Or App 729 , 344 P3d 57 (2015), defendant contends that “ORS 137.286, in combination with ORS 161.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.