State v. Herring
Herring
Citation
341 Or. App. 275
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
No. 531 June 11, 2025 275 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PHILLIP LEE HERRING, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 23CR32954; A182610 Michael B. Wynhausen, Judge. Submitted April 23, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Daniel C. Silberman, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. SHORR, P. J. Affirmed. 276 State v. Herring SHORR, P. J. Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of unautho- rized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and was sentenced to a total of 45 months in prison. On each of the two counts, the court imposed $200 fines. On appeal, defendant challenges the imposition of the fines, arguing that the trial court plainly erred by imposing them as mandatory fines with- out recognizing that it had the discretion to waive them. See ORS 137.286(2) (providing that, “[u]nless a specific min- imum fine is provided by law, the minimum fine for a felony is $200”); ORS 137.286(3) (authorizing the court to waive that minimum fine). Defendant argues that we have previ- ously corrected unpreserved claims of error when a fine was imposed based on the misunderstanding that it was man- datory rather than discretionary. See, e.g., State v. Cid, 315 Or App 273, 274, 500 P3d 758 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred by imposing $200 fines on the defendant’s felony convictions “based on the court’s erroneous understanding that imposition of the fines was mandatory,” and exercising discretion to correct the error); State v. Manning, 300 Or App 390, 391, 453 P3d 946 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 292 (2020) (exercising discretion to correct the trial court’s plain error in imposing statutory fines on felony counts under ORS 137.286 based on the mis- taken belief that the fines were “mandatory”). For an error to qualify as “plain,” an appellant must establish that the claimed error is one of law, obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the record with- out our having to choose among competing inferences. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013). Here, unlike in Cid or Manning, it is not obvious that the trial court misunderstood its authority to impose the fines under ORS 137.286. The court never referred to the fines as “man- datory.” Rather, it twice referred to them as “a $200 mini- mum fine,” which is exactly how the statute itself describes the fine; and it once used the word “standard” before it listed a number of aspects of the sentence, including the fine.1 That is not enough to establish that the court erroneously 1 The court stated, “Standard—or there will be a one year post-prison super- vision, a $200 fine, a one year driver’s license revocation, and that will be with good time, earned time, credit for time served.” Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 275 (2025) 277 believed that it lacked discretion to waive the $200 fine, and we do not assume that the court was unaware of ORS 137.286(3) simply because it did not expressly mention its discretion under that statute when it imposed the fines. Affirmed.
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: State v. Herring
Citation: 341 Or. App. 275
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction: SA
In the case of State v. Herring, the defendant, Phillip Lee Herring, appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle under ORS 164.135. The primary focus of the appeal was on the imposition of $200 fines for each count, which the defendant argued were applied erroneously as mandatory fines.
Key Legal Issues
- Discretionary vs. Mandatory Fines: Did the trial court err by imposing fines without recognizing its discretion to waive them under ORS 137.286?
- Plain Error Doctrine: Is the imposition of the fines a plain error that warrants correction despite being unpreserved at trial?
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals of Oregon affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the imposition of fines was not a plain error. The court determined that the trial judge did not misunderstand their authority regarding the fines.
Legal Reasoning
The court's reasoning hinged on several key points:
- The trial court referred to the fines as a “$200 minimum fine”, aligning with the statutory language of ORS 137.286.
- The court did not explicitly label the fines as mandatory, which played a crucial role in the appellate court's assessment of whether a misunderstanding occurred.
- The appellate court emphasized that for an error to be classified as “plain,” it must be obvious and apparent on the record without needing to draw competing inferences.
Key Holdings
- The appellate court found that the trial court's language did not indicate a misunderstanding of its discretion under ORS 137.286(3).
- The court affirmed that the imposition of the fines was appropriate given the context and statutory framework.
Precedents and Citations
The court referenced previous cases to support its decision:
- State v. Cid, 315 Or App 273 (2021): Addressed the correction of unpreserved claims of error regarding mandatory fines.
- State v. Manning, 300 Or App 390 (2019): Discussed the exercise of discretion in correcting trial court errors related to fines.
Practical Implications
The ruling in State v. Herring has significant implications for:
- Defendants in Oregon: This case clarifies that trial courts have discretion regarding the imposition of fines, and defendants should be aware of this when negotiating plea deals.
- Legal Practitioners: Attorneys should ensure that trial courts are informed about their discretion to waive fines, especially in felony cases, to avoid potential appeals based on misunderstandings.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of precise language in judicial proceedings and the interpretation of statutory authority regarding fines. Legal professionals must remain vigilant in advocating for their clients' rights concerning discretionary penalties.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools