Legal Opinion

State v. Slessler

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 21, 2018No. A164607 (Control); A164608Published

1Per curiam

*90In a single assignment of error, defendant challenges the trial court's imposition of $221 in court-appointed attorney fees as part of a judgment concerning a probation violation. He argues, as he did below, that he lacked the ability to pay those fees. See State v. Kanuch , 231 Or. App. 20, 24, 217 P.3d 1082 (2009) (court cannot order a defendant to pay costs unless the state proves the defendant's ability to pay them). The state concedes that, under this court's case law, the evidence in the record is insufficient to support a finding that defendant is or may be able to pay the attorney…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. KanuchCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  2. State v. VillaltaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API