State v. Wilhelm
Wilhelm
Citation
341 Or. App. 302
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
45%
Case Summary
302 June 11, 2025 No. 539 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. NICHOLAS KEATON WILHELM, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 23CR25941; A183038 Eric Butterfield, Judge. Submitted May 13, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Anna R. Johnson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services/Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 302 (2025) 303 PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045. He contends that the trial court erred when it included in the judg- ment a term ordering him to pay “any required per diem fees” without pronouncing that term at sentencing. The state concedes the error and agrees that the case should be remanded for resentencing. We accept the concession and remand for resentencing. See State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244, 246, 545 P3d 772, rev den, 372 Or 720 (2024) (holding that “[t]he trial court erred by including a previously unan- nounced term in the sentencing judgment,” and remanding for resentencing). Remanded for resentencing; otherwise 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. Wilhelm
Citation: 341 Or. App. 302
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction: Washington County Circuit Court
In State v. Wilhelm, the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed an appeal from Nicholas Keaton Wilhelm, who was convicted of theft in the second degree under ORS 164.045. The primary issue on appeal was the inclusion of a term in the sentencing judgment that had not been pronounced during the sentencing hearing.
Key Legal Issues
- Inclusion of Unannounced Terms: Whether the trial court erred by including a term regarding per diem fees in the judgment without announcing it at sentencing.
- Remand for Resentencing: The appropriateness of remanding the case for resentencing based on the identified error.
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals ruled to remand for resentencing while affirming the conviction for theft. The court accepted the state's concession regarding the error in the sentencing judgment.
Legal Reasoning
The court's decision was grounded in the principle that a trial court must pronounce all terms of a sentence at the time of sentencing. The inclusion of terms not announced during the sentencing hearing violates procedural fairness and can lead to unjust penalties being imposed on the defendant. The court referenced State v. Barr, which established that including unannounced terms in a sentencing judgment constitutes an error warranting remand.
Key Holdings
- The trial court erred by including “any required per diem fees” in the judgment without prior announcement.
- The case was remanded for resentencing to correct this procedural error.
- The conviction for theft in the second degree was affirmed.
Precedents and Citations
- State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244, 246, 545 P3d 772 (2024): Established that unannounced terms in a sentencing judgment are procedurally improper.
Practical Implications
The ruling in State v. Wilhelm underscores the importance of procedural adherence in sentencing. Legal practitioners must ensure that all terms of a sentence are clearly articulated during sentencing to avoid potential appeals and remands. This case serves as a reminder for trial courts to maintain transparency and fairness in the judicial process, ensuring that defendants are fully aware of the penalties imposed upon them.
Legal professionals should also note the implications for future cases involving sentencing errors, as this decision reinforces the necessity for precise communication of sentencing terms.
Keywords: Oregon Court of Appeals, theft in the second degree, resentencing, procedural error, sentencing judgment, legal implications, State v. Wilhelm
Word Count: 514
Heading Count: 7
Reading Time (minutes): 2
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
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