State v. Machado
Umatilla County Circuit Court, Oregon
1Per curiam
In this consolidated appeal, defendant raises a single assignment of error, asserting that, in A158366, the trial court erred by imposing a $60 “Mandatory State Amt.”1 Defendant argues that the trial court did not have statutory authority to impose the financial obligation, and the state concedes that the trial court erred. We agree with the parties, reverse the portion of the judgment in A158366 requiring defendant to pay the $60 “Mandatory State Amt,” and otherwise affirm.
In A158366, defendant was convicted of felony strangulation constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.187(4). In its…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. DeCampCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- State v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- State v. LewisOregon Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. BeckhamCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
- State v. LindemannCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
- State v. MartinezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2026
- State v. TriplettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
- State v. VincentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017