Legal Opinion

State v. Fuller

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 12, 1973PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchwab, C.J.

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 indigent at the time of trial. Such a sentence is authorized by ORS 161.665, 161.675 and 161.685,① enacted by the legislature in 1971. Oregon *154Laws 1971, ch. 743, §§ 80, 81 and 82, p 1899. Relying on James v. Strange, 407 US 128, 92 S Ct 2027, 32 L Ed *1552d 600 (1972), defendant argues it is unconstitutional to require…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Argersinger v. HamlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. James v. StrangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. In Re AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Fuller v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. State v. BlankWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. BlankWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Thomas v. HaslamDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2018
  5. State v. HessWashington Supreme Court · 1975

48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API