State v. Taroy

No. 1076 November 4, 2026 455 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. KENNETH ROMY TAROY, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 25CR26216, 25CR26232, 25CR40685; A188576 (Control), A188577, A188578 Lung S. Hung, Judge. Submitted September 11, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kristin A. Carveth, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* EGAN, J. In Case Nos. 25CR26216 and 25CR40685, remanded for resentencing and for entry of judgments deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments” from the judgments; in Case No. 25CR26232, remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. ______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). 456 State v. Taroy EGAN, J. In this consolidated appeal, defendant appeals from judgments of conviction, entered pursuant to guilty pleas, for harassment in Case No. 25CR26216, unlawful possession of methamphetamine in Case No. 25CR26232, and first-degree criminal trespass in Case No. 25CR40685. In his first five assignments of error, he challenges five special conditions of probation that the trial court failed to announce at sentenc- ing. The trial court referred to the challenged conditions at sentencing by using shorthand—the “alcohol and drug package” and “mental health package.” The state concedes that it is not “apparent somewhere in the record that the shorthand phrase[s] included the conditions that were even- tually listed in the written judgment,” and that the court therefore erred by including the challenged conditions in the judgment. State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 582-83, 530 P3d 118, rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023). We therefore remand for resentencing in all three cases. See id. at 581. In his sixth and seventh assignments of error, defen- dant challenges language in the judgments for Case Nos. 25CR26216 and 25CR40685 stating that “[t]he court may increase the total amount owed by adding collection fees and other assessments. These fees and assessments may be added without further notice to the defendant and without further court order.” Defendant argues that the trial court erred by including the terms “and other assessments” and “and assessments” in that provision. The state concedes the error. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 279, 587 P3d 428 (2026) (hold- ing that trial court lacked statutory authority to impose “other assessments” terms in judgment). On remand, the erroneous terms should be deleted from the judgments in those two cases. See id. at 280 (when “the only error was the inclusion of terms in the judgment that the trial court had no authority to impose, the appropriate remedy is to remand with instructions to delete the erroneous terms from the judgment” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). In Case Nos. 25CR26216 and 25CR40685, remanded for resentencing and for entry of judgments deleting “and Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 455 (2026) 457 other assessments” and “and assessments” from the judg- ments; in Case No. 25CR26232, remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.