State v. Yarbrough
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Date FiledNovember 4, 2026
DocketA187999
JudgeLagesen
StatusUnpublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
No. 1069 November 4, 2026 435
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
DAVID RAY YARBROUGH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Yamhill County Circuit Court
24CR65171; A187999
Jennifer K. Chapman, Judge.
Submitted September 11, 2026.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Rond Chananudech, 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.*
LAGESEN, C. J.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment omitting
“and other assessments” and “and assessments”; otherwise
affirmed.
______________
* Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b).
436 State v. Yarbrough
LAGESEN, C. J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
driving while suspended or revoked. He assigns error to the
inclusion in the judgment of a provision stating that the court
could impose “other assessments” without further notice to
defendant and without further court order. The state con-
cedes the error. We agree with and accept the state’s con-
cession. See State v. Martinez, 347 Or App 273, 279, 587 P3d
428 (2026) (holding that trial court lacked statutory author-
ity to impose “other assessments” terms in judgment).
That error requires us to remand for entry of an
amended judgment. Id. at 280 (concluding that 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 errone-
ous terms from the judgment” (brackets and internal quo-
tation marks omitted)). We therefore reverse the portions
of the judgment related to adding assessments to the total
amount owed by defendant and remand to the trial court
for entry of an amended judgment deleting the words “and
other assessments” and “and assessments.”
Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment
omitting “and other assessments” and “and assessments”;
otherwise affirmed.