Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.665

Costs

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

      161.665 Costs. (1) Except as provided in ORS 151.505, the court, only in the case of a defendant for whom it enters a judgment of conviction, may include in its sentence thereunder a money award for all costs specially incurred by the state in prosecuting the defendant. Costs include a reasonable attorney fee for counsel appointed pursuant to ORS 135.045 or 135.050 and a reasonable amount for fees and expenses incurred pursuant to preauthorization under ORS 135.055. A reasonable attorney fee is presumed to be a reasonable number of hours at the hourly rate authorized by the Oregon Public Defense Commission under ORS 151.216. Costs do not include expenses inherent in providing a constitutionally guaranteed jury trial or expenditures in connection with the maintenance and operation of government agencies that must be made by the public irrespective of specific violations of law.

      (2) Except as provided in ORS 151.505, the court, after the conclusion of an appeal of its initial judgment of conviction, may include in its general judgment, or enter a supplemental judgment that includes, a money award that requires a convicted defendant to pay a reasonable attorney fee for counsel appointed pursuant to ORS 138.500, including counsel who is appointed under ORS 151.216 or counsel who is under contract to provide services for the proceeding under ORS 151.219, and other costs and expenses allowed by the executive director of the Oregon Public Defense Commission under ORS 138.500 (4). A reasonable attorney fee is presumed to be a reasonable number of hours at the hourly rate authorized by the commission under ORS 151.216.

      (3) For purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, compensation of counsel is determined by reference to a schedule of compensation established by the commission under ORS 151.216.

      (4) The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them. In determining the amount and method of payment of costs, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose.

      (5) A defendant who has been sentenced to pay costs under this section and who is not in contumacious default in the payment of costs may at any time petition the court that sentenced the defendant for remission of the payment of costs or of any unpaid portion of costs. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the immediate family of the defendant, the court may enter a supplemental judgment that remits all or part of the amount due in costs, or modifies the method of payment under ORS 161.675.

      (6) Except as provided in subsection (7) of this section, all moneys collected or paid under this section shall be paid into the Criminal Fine Account.

      (7) The court may, in the judgment of conviction, include a money award requiring the defendant to pay the costs of extraditing the defendant to this state. Any amounts awarded to the state under this subsection must be listed separately in the money award portion of the judgment. All moneys collected or paid under this subsection shall be deposited into the Arrest and Return Account established by ORS 133.865. [1971 c.743 §80; 1981 s.s. c.3 §120; 1983 c.763 §12; 1985 c.710 §3; 1987 c.803 §26; 1989 c.1053 §11; 1991 c.460 §12; 1991 c.840 §1; 1997 c.761 §1; 2001 c.962 §§41,113; 2003 c.449 §29; 2003 c.576 §§247,248; 2003 c.615 §2; 2011 c.597 §44; 2015 c.198 §2; 2023 c.281 §44]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 237 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Ferman-Velasco
State v. Ferman-Velasco (2002) or · cites it 32× “602(1) and ORS 161.665(1) — to support their conflicting contentions respecting the trial court’s order.”
State v. Pendergrapht (2012) orctapp · cites it 11× “505 and ORS 161.665, which provide that a court may not require a defendant to pay attorney fees unless the defendant “is or may be able to pay” the fees, defendant argues that the trial court’s requirement that he pay the fees is not supported by the record.”
State v. Fuller (1973) orctapp · cites it 29× “The sole question in this appeal which merits discussion is whether a sentencing court has authority to include among the conditions of probation the requirement that a defendant repay attorney fees and investigator fees that the county expended on his behalf because he was…”
State v. Morales (2020) or · cites it 16× “265 and ORS 161.665. When a criminal defendant is not conditionally released or released on per- sonal recognizance, the judge “shall set a security amount that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance” at future court proceedings in the case.”
Fuller v. Oregon (1974) scotus · cites it 12× “Ore. Rev. Stat. § 161.665 (1). Second, a court may not order a convicted person to pay these expenses unless he "is or will be able to pay them.”
State v. Dunham (2024) orctapp · cites it 26× “And, indeed, the existence of that safety valve has been instrumental in upholding the consti- tutionality of ORS 161.665 as a whole. The United States Supreme Court summarized the operation of ORS 161.”
State v. Coverstone (2014) orctapp · cites it 3× “505 and ORS 161.665 were amended in 2011, see Or Laws 2011, ch 597, §§ 43, 44.”
State v. Mickow (2016) orctapp · cites it 5× “505 and ORS 161.665. To invoke that authority, the trial court must make a predicate determination that a criminal defendant “is or may be able to pay” the fees.”
State v. Gile (1999) orctapp · cites it 12× “” ORS 161.665 affords the court discretion to impose costs in a “judgment of conviction.”
State v. Mann (2023) orctapp · cites it 8× “Defendant, seizing on that relationship between law enforcement and abuse assessment centers, argues that a separate statute, ORS 161.665, prohibits the recovery of the cost of a child abuse assessment.”
State v. Ferman-Velasco (1998) orctapp · cites it 10× “" At trial, three witnesses testified for the prosecution, only one of which was a police officer.”
State v. Robinson (2006) kan · cites it 2× “5 (citing Ore. Rev. Stat. § 161.665(3), (4) [1971]).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.665(1) — 36 cases
State v. Ferman-Velasco (2002) or “602(1) and ORS 161.665(1) — to support their conflicting contentions respecting the trial court’s order.”
State v. Gile (1999) orctapp “” ORS 161.665 affords the court discretion to impose costs in a “judgment of conviction.”
State v. Ferman-Velasco (1998) orctapp “" At trial, three witnesses testified for the prosecution, only one of which was a police officer.”
State v. Morales (2020) or “265 and ORS 161.665. When a criminal defendant is not conditionally released or released on per- sonal recognizance, the judge “shall set a security amount that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance” at future court proceedings in the case.”
State v. Kanuch (2009) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.665(2) — 16 cases
State v. Fuller (1973) orctapp “The sole question in this appeal which merits discussion is whether a sentencing court has authority to include among the conditions of probation the requirement that a defendant repay attorney fees and investigator fees that the county expended on his behalf because he was…”
State v. Hastings (1976) orctapp
State v. Washburn (1980) orctapp
State v. Armstrong (1980) orctapp
Stacey v. State (1977) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.665(3) — 35 cases
State v. Robinson (2006) kan “5 (citing Ore. Rev. Stat. § 161.665(3), (4) [1971]).”
State v. Fuller (1973) orctapp “The sole question in this appeal which merits discussion is whether a sentencing court has authority to include among the conditions of probation the requirement that a defendant repay attorney fees and investigator fees that the county expended on his behalf because he was…”
State v. Evans (1981) or
State v. Pendergrapht (2012) orctapp “505 and ORS 161.665, which provide that a court may not require a defendant to pay attorney fees unless the defendant “is or may be able to pay” the fees, defendant argues that the trial court’s requirement that he pay the fees is not supported by the record.”
State v. Evans (1981) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.665(4) — 132 cases
State v. Morales (2020) or “265 and ORS 161.665. When a criminal defendant is not conditionally released or released on per- sonal recognizance, the judge “shall set a security amount that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance” at future court proceedings in the case.”
State v. Pendergrapht (2012) orctapp “505 and ORS 161.665, which provide that a court may not require a defendant to pay attorney fees unless the defendant “is or may be able to pay” the fees, defendant argues that the trial court’s requirement that he pay the fees is not supported by the record.”
State v. Coverstone (2014) orctapp “505 and ORS 161.665 were amended in 2011, see Or Laws 2011, ch 597, §§ 43, 44.”
State v. Fuller (1973) orctapp “The sole question in this appeal which merits discussion is whether a sentencing court has authority to include among the conditions of probation the requirement that a defendant repay attorney fees and investigator fees that the county expended on his behalf because he was…”
State v. Zepeda (2015) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.665(5) — 3 cases
State v. Dunham (2024) orctapp “And, indeed, the existence of that safety valve has been instrumental in upholding the consti- tutionality of ORS 161.665 as a whole. The United States Supreme Court summarized the operation of ORS 161.”
State v. Tiscornia (2015) orctapp
State v. Williams (2015) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.665(7) — 3 cases
State v. Velasquez-Orozco (2017) orctapp
State v. Folks (2018) orctapp
State v. Nelson (2023) orctapp
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.