Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RAYMOND R. GAGE, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-05-24
Citations: 96 Or. App. 733
Docket Number: 85-12-35402; CA A48409
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RAYMOND R. GAGE, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 96
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 28, 1988,
remanded for determination of costs; otherwise affirmed May 24, 1989
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RAYMOND R. GAGE, Appellant.
(85-12-35402; CA A48409)
773 P2d 1362
Ingrid A. MacFarlane, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Frank Gruber, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant pleaded no contest to a charge of criminal mischief. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years. Later, he was found to be in violation of the terms of probation, and it was revoked. When sentence was imposed, the court ordered that defendant
"repay all costs incurred by the State in providing a defense for this revocation hearing
There was no amount stated in the order or any specification as to what amount defendant was ordered to repay.
On appeal, defendant does not challenge the revocation or the sentence in any way except to argue that the order to repay all costs is deficient, because it does not specify an amount. The state concedes that the order is deficient. We agree. State v. Tompkins, 69 Or App 258, 684 P2d 629 (1984).
Remanded for determination of costs pursuant to ORS 161.665; otherwise affirmed.