State v. Harlow
State v. Harlow
Opinion
242 February 26, 2025 No. 153 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. HEATHER TATYANA HARLOW, Defendant-Appellant.
Coos County Circuit Court 23CR18717; A182905 Martin E. Stone, Judge.
Submitted January 15, 2025.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Marc D. Brown, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
EGAN, J.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 242 (2025) 243 EGAN, J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for second-degree burglary, ORS 164.215, and second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354. On appeal, defendant chal- lenges a part of the sentence included in the judgment but not announced in open court. We remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm.1 The judgment provides that defendant may be con- sidered for any form of alternative sanction and defendant shall pay any required per diem fees, but that requirement to pay per diem fees was not announced in open court at sentencing. The state concedes the error. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 581, 530 P3d 118, rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023) (“A criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court.”). The appropriate remedy is a remand for resentencing. See State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244-46, 545 P3d 772, rev den, 372 Or 720 (2024) (remanding for resentencing when requirement to pay per diem fees was included in the judgment but not announced in open court at sentencing).
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.