Case Name: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kandi Lucile CROW, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2018-05-31
Citations: 418 P.3d 779
Docket Number: A162791
Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Kandi Lucile CROW, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 418
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Kandi Lucile CROW, Defendant-Appellant.
A162791
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Submitted April 6, 2018.
May 31, 2018
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Vanessa Areli, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment revoking her probation. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's imposition of $110 in court-appointed attorney fees and a $25 probation-violation fee. Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it ordered her to pay those fees because the court entered them in the judgment without first announcing in court that it would impose them. Defendant requests that we remand the case for resentencing. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing attorney fees for the first time in the judgment. However, the state argues that, because it agrees with defendant that that error requires a remand, we need not reach defendant's assignment of error to the court's imposition of the probation-violation fee. We agree with and accept the state's concession regarding the attorney fees and, accordingly, reverse the imposition of those fees. See State v. White , 269 Or. App. 255, 256-57, 344 P.3d 510, rev. den. , 357 Or. 300, 353 P.3d 595 (2015) (accepting state's concession that trial court erred in imposing court-appointed attorney fees for the first time in the judgment). Also, because the parties agree that the error in this case necessitates a remand for resentencing, we do not reach defendant's argument regarding the imposition of the probation-violation fee.
Portion of judgment imposing court-appointed attorney fees reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.