151.487
Ability to pay; effect.
(1) If in determining that a person is financially eligible for appointed
counsel under ORS 151.485, the court finds that the person has financial
resources that enable the person to pay in full or in part the administrative
costs of determining the eligibility of the person and the costs of the legal
and other services to be provided at state expense that are related to the
provision of appointed counsel, the court shall enter a limited judgment
requiring that the person pay to the Public Defense Services Account
established by ORS 151.225, through the clerk of the court, the amount that it
finds the person is able to pay without creating substantial hardship in
providing basic economic necessities to the person or the person’s dependent
family. The amount that a court may require the person to pay is subject to the
guidelines and procedures issued by the Oregon Public Defense Commission as
provided in subsection (4) of this section.
(2) Failure to
comply with the requirements of a limited judgment entered under this section
is not grounds for contempt or grounds for withdrawal by the appointed
attorney.
(3) Except as
authorized in this section, a person, organization or governmental agency may
not request or accept a payment or promise of payment for assisting in the
representation of a person by appointment.
(4) The
commission shall promulgate and issue guidelines and procedures:
(a) For the
determination of persons provided with appointed counsel who have some
financial resources to pay in full or in part the administrative, legal and
other costs under subsection (1) of this section; and
(b) Regarding the
amounts persons may be required to pay by a court under subsection (1) of this
section.
(5) The
determination that a person is able to pay or partially able to pay, or that a
person no longer has the ability to pay the amount ordered in subsection (1) of
this section, is subject to review at any time by the court. [1989 c.1053 §14;
1993 c.33 §305; 1997 c.761 §3; 2001 c.962 §34; 2011 c.597 §42; 2012 c.107 §43;
2023 c.281 §37]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case:
State v. Colgrove, 480 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Colgrove, 480 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “McCarthy, 305 Or App 658, 667-68 , 473 P3d 74 (2020) (concluding same in analogous circumstances on appeal of a supplemental judgment under ORS 151.487). On this record, we agree with defendant that, notwithstanding the small amount at issue, the trial court could not make the…”
Bacote v. Johnson, 35 P.3d 1019 (Or. 2001).
· cites it 6× “505(3) provides that costs under the statute do not include costs imposed and paid under a previous order under ORS 151.487. However, costs under the statute may include costs imposed under ORS 151.”
Alexander v. Johnson, 990 P.2d 929 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “487 does apply to post-conviction proceedings, subsection 1 of that statute only authorizes the trial court, “in determining that a person is eligible for court-appointed counsel * * * [to] order the person to pay the State Court Indigent Defense Account[,]” if “[t]he court…”
State v. Mannix, 326 P.3d 1236 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “That limited judgment was issued pursuant to ORS 151.487 (2009), which provided: “(1) If in determining that a person is financially eligible for appointed counsel under ORS 151.”
Bacote v. Johnson, 7 P.3d 729 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “The determination of the ability of a person to pay costs and the amount of costs to be paid shall be subject to the guidelines and procedures issued by the State Court Administrator under ORS 151.487." We do not reach the merits of petitioner's present argument because…”
State v. McCarthy, 473 P.3d 74 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 24× “Further, because ORS 151.487 requires a court to first find that a defen- dant has the financial resources to pay the attorney fees before it is authorized to impose them, and the record does not support an inference that the court made such a finding, the Court of Appeals…”
State v. Pendergrapht, 284 P.3d 573 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“rt may include in its judgment a money award requiring that the person repay in full or in part the administrative costs of determining the eligibility of the person for appointed counsel, and the costs of the legal and other services that are related to the provision of…”
State v. Venturi, 998 P.2d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Next, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s assessment of court-appointed attorney fees under ORS 151.487. 3 Defendant argues that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding of his ability to pay the $500 *53 assessment.”
State v. Shank, 136 P.3d 101 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 9× “The state moves to dismiss defendant’s appeal, arguing that the costs imposed pursuant to ORS 151.487 are civil in nature and that ORS 19.”
Tucker v. Lampert, 26 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “4 Plaintiff asserts: “The Court of Appeals recently determined that the plain language of ORS 151.487 only permits the court to order a person to pay costs or fees ‘at the time the court is determining that a person is indigent and qualifies for court-appointed counsel.”
State v. Eshaia, 291 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“rt may include in its judgment a money award requiring that the person repay in full or in part the administrative costs of determining the eligibility of the person for appointed counsel, and the costs of the legal and other services that are related to the provision of…”
Davis v. Lampert, 25 P.3d 408 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The determination of the ability of a person to pay costs and the amount of costs to be paid shall be subject to the guidelines and procedures issued by the State Court Administrator under ORS 151.487.””
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 151.487(1) — 8 cases
State v. Colgrove, 480 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“McCarthy, 305 Or App 658, 667-68 , 473 P3d 74 (2020) (concluding same in analogous circumstances on appeal of a supplemental judgment under ORS 151.487). On this record, we agree with defendant that, notwithstanding the small amount at issue, the trial court could not make the…”
Alexander v. Johnson, 990 P.2d 929 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“487 does apply to post-conviction proceedings, subsection 1 of that statute only authorizes the trial court, “in determining that a person is eligible for court-appointed counsel * * * [to] order the person to pay the State Court Indigent Defense Account[,]” if “[t]he court…”
Tucker v. Lampert, 26 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“4 Plaintiff asserts: “The Court of Appeals recently determined that the plain language of ORS 151.487 only permits the court to order a person to pay costs or fees ‘at the time the court is determining that a person is indigent and qualifies for court-appointed counsel.”
State v. McCarthy, 473 P.3d 74 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Further, because ORS 151.487 requires a court to first find that a defen- dant has the financial resources to pay the attorney fees before it is authorized to impose them, and the record does not support an inference that the court made such a finding, the Court of Appeals…”
State v. Shank, 136 P.3d 101 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“The state moves to dismiss defendant’s appeal, arguing that the costs imposed pursuant to ORS 151.487 are civil in nature and that ORS 19.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 151.487(2) — 2 cases
State v. Mannix, 326 P.3d 1236 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“That limited judgment was issued pursuant to ORS 151.487 (2009), which provided: “(1) If in determining that a person is financially eligible for appointed counsel under ORS 151.”
State v. Shank, 136 P.3d 101 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“The state moves to dismiss defendant’s appeal, arguing that the costs imposed pursuant to ORS 151.487 are civil in nature and that ORS 19.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 151.487(5) — 2 cases
State v. McCarthy, 473 P.3d 74 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Further, because ORS 151.487 requires a court to first find that a defen- dant has the financial resources to pay the attorney fees before it is authorized to impose them, and the record does not support an inference that the court made such a finding, the Court of Appeals…”
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.