Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.030 (2026)

Amount of fee; distribution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      813.030 Amount of fee; distribution. (1) The fee required by ORS 471.432 and 813.020 (1) shall be in the amount of $255, except that the court may waive all or part of the fee in cases involving indigent defendants. The court may make provision for payment of the fee on an installment basis. A circuit court shall deposit the fee in the Criminal Fine Account. If the fee is collected in a municipal or justice court, the fee shall be forwarded by the court to the Department of Revenue for deposit in the Criminal Fine Account.

      (2) The court may not order the fee under ORS 471.432 to be paid in any case where the person who is required to undergo assessment and treatment is under 18 years of age. [1985 c.16 §296; 1987 c.905 §29; 1989 c.576 §§6a,7a; 1989 c.635 §§1,3; 1991 c.557 §4; 1993 c.13 §5; 1999 c.646 §3; 2009 c.595 §1142; 2011 c.597 §§147,324; 2011 c.671 §3; 2012 c.81 §§2,3; 2021 c.597 §32]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: State v. Tison, 424 P.3d 823 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tison, 424 P.3d 823 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “020(1) and *372 ORS 813.030 absent a finding that defendant was indigent.”
State v. Macy, 492 P.3d 1277 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “020(1)(a) provides, in relevant part, that, when a person is con- victed of driving while under the influence of intoxicants, “the court shall require” the person to “[p]ay to the court the fee described under ORS 813.030 [providing for a $255 fee].” As we discuss below, that…”
State v. Wilson, 263 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer lacked probable cause to stop defendant and that the trial court “exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed a [DUII conviction] fee in excess of $130” under ORS…”
State v. Taylor, 340 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “The court observed that, since defendant’s original conviction, the legislature had increased the “DUII conviction fee” set by ORS 813.030 from $130 to $255. The court also observed that the amended statute required courts to impose the increased fee regardless of when the…”
State v. Dennis, 464 P.3d 518 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “010(6)(c) and a $255 DUII fee under ORS 813.030 but that it was not imposing attorney fees.”
State v. Colgrove, 480 P.3d 1026 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “” ORS 813.030 (“The fee required by ORS 471.”
State v. Shepherd, 459 P.3d 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “1 Based on its oral statements at sentencing, it appears that the trial court may have intended to impose a $1,000 fine under ORS 813.”
State v. Bilton, 493 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “020(1)(a) (requir- ing a court to impose the fee in ORS 813.030 when a person is convicted of DUII); ORS 813.”
State v. Koch, 341 P.3d 112 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Defendant argues that the trial court (1) erred in denying his motion to suppress urinalysis test results that were obtained after officers violated defendant’s rights under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, and (2) committed plain error by imposing a $255…”
State v. Soto, 343 P.3d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “290 (2009); a state obligation fee of $255, ORS 813.030 (2011), amended by Or Laws 2011, ch 671, § 3; and a DUII fine of $2,000, ORS 813.”
State v. Toombs, 460 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “In his second assignment, defen- dant argues that the trial court erred when, after indicating orally at defendant’s sentencing hearing that it intended to impose a $6,250 fine, it entered a judgment imposing a fine in the amount of $6,505.”
State v. Gammon, 332 P.3d 347 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer lacked probable cause to stop defendant and that the trial court plainly erred when it imposed a DUII fee of $255 because, under ORS 813.030 (2009), the DUII-conviction…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.030(1) — 5 cases
State v. Fulton, 345 Or. App. 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Wolf, 344 Or. App. 605 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Wolf, 344 Or. App. 605 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Fulton, 345 Or. App. 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Ruiz, 333 Or. App. 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.030(4) — 1 case
State v. Blaney, 39 P.3d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
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.