Legal Opinion

State v. Zepeda

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 14, 2015No. 11C44396, 11C47701, 13C45352; A155303, A155304, A155305PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTookey, J.

In these consolidated criminal cases, defendant appeals from judgments convicting her of one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, and three counts of failure to appear in the first degree, ORS 162.205. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s imposition of court-appointed attorney fees, asserting that the imposition of those fees violates ORS 161.665(4), which provides that a court may not sentence a defendant to pay attorney fees for court-appointed counsel “unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.” For the reasons explained below, we agree with…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. CoverstoneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  2. State v. PendergraphtCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  3. State v. KanuchCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. State v. HuntCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  5. State v. GenslerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. MendozaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  2. State v. DyllaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  3. State v. Hernandez-CamachoWashington County Circuit Court, Oregon · 2016
  4. State v. MusgraveCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API