STATE v. ROWLAND TM0621557; A140107.
228 P.3d 670 (2010)
234 Or. App. 494
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joshua Delray ROWLAND, Defendant-Respondent.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Decided March 31, 2010.
Christina M. Hutchins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General.
Daniel C. Bennett, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Appellate Division, Office of Public Defense Services.
Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and SCHUMAN, Judge, and ORTEGA, Judge.
The state appeals an order dismissing with prejudice a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). Defendant was charged by information with DUII and reckless driving. Defendant entered a diversion program, and the state dismissed the reckless driving charge. Before the diversion period ended, defendant moved for an extension of the diversion period, which the court granted. The trial court subsequently held a hearing on an order to show cause why defendant's diversion should not be terminated and a conviction entered. Over the state's objection, the trial court dismissed the DUII charge. For the reasons explained below, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter a judgment of conviction on the DUII charge and for sentencing.
The relevant facts are procedural and not in dispute. Defendant was charged with DUII and reckless driving in December 2006; he entered into diversion a few days later. See ORS 813.210 (allowing a DUII defendant to petition for a DUII diversion agreement). The diversion period was to end on December 27, 2007. See ORS 813.230(3) (providing for one-year diversion period). In November 2007, however, defendant sought an extension of the diversion period. See ORS 813.225 (allowing a defendant to seek one 180-day extension). The trial court extended the diversion period to June 2008. In March 2008, the court received a notice of noncompliance indicating
After appointing counsel for defendant, the court held a hearing on the show-cause order in September 2008. At the hearing, defense counsel pointed out that defendant had, at least by then, completed the requirements of the diversion agreement: "He's brought in paperwork that shows that he's completed everything. Some of the financials may have been paid a little bit late but it looks like he got all that done." Defendant stated that he had proof of completion of treatment and that he had, by the time of the hearing, paid all fees.
After a short discussion among the court and counsel, the court decided to dismiss the DUII charge. See ORS 813.250 (providing that, at the conclusion of the diversion agreement, a defendant who has "fully complied with and performed the conditions of" the agreement may seek an order dismissing the charge with prejudice); ORS 813.225(7)(a) ("If the defendant fully complies with the conditions of the diversion agreement within the extended diversion period, the court may dismiss the charge with prejudice under ORS 813.250."). The court explained,
Over the state's objection, the trial court entered an order dismissing the DUII charge.
On appeal, the state argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the DUII charge, because defendant did not complete the requirements of the diversion agreement within the extended diversion period. It points to ORS 813.225(7)(b), which provides that,
The state asserts that, because defendant failed to comply with the diversion agreement within the extended diversion period—by failing to pay all the required fees—the trial court was required to enter a judgment of conviction.
This case is controlled by our holdings in State v. Vargas-Garcia,
Id. at 18-19,
Similarly, in Vargas-Garcia, the defendant entered into a DUII diversion agreement. The diversion agreement required, among other things, that the defendant pay a diversion filing fee and a unitary assessment fee. Later, the trial court issued an order to show cause why the agreement should not be revoked for "nonpayment of court fines and fees." At a hearing on the order, the court noted that the defendant "still owes fines." The defendant replied, "I finished, but I haven't paid." 217 Or.App. at 72,
Vargas-Garcia, 217 Or.App. at 73,
Maul and Vargas-Garcia stand for the unremarkable proposition that ORS 813.225 means what it says: If a defendant subject to a diversion agreement does not complete the defendant's obligations under the agreement—including payment of all monetary obligations—by the end of the diversion period, "the court shall enter the guilty plea or no contest plea filed as part of the petition for a diversion agreement, shall enter a judgment of conviction and shall sentence the defendant." ORS 813.225(7)(b) (emphasis added).
In this case, the court, referring to one of defendant's financial obligations, stated that defendant "didn't get it paid before the end of the diversion time period." The court previously had stated, referring to a required fee, that "it's late" and that defendant had "finished paying the financial obligations fairly soon after" the end of the extended diversion period. Thus, the court found that defendant had not paid all required fees during the extended diversion period. Although the trial court purported to find "good cause" for defendant's tardiness, ORS 813.225 simply does not provide for such an exception. The statute is, as we said in Maul, "unequivocal" and "inflexible." 205 Or.App. at 19,
Defendant insists that the trial court did not err, because it implicitly found that defendant had successfully completed diversion. He asserts:
(Emphasis in original.) Defendant, relying on Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 487,
We reject that argument for two reasons. First, we do not see how the trial court's ruling, read in its entirety, can be read to say that it found that defendant "fully complied with and performed the conditions of the diversion agreement," as required by ORS 813.250(1). The court stated three times that defendant was late in paying the fees. Because we do not understand the court to have
Defendant also argues that the trial court implicitly granted defendant an extension to pay the fee or fees that were not paid on time. He reasons that the trial court had authority to waive certain fees and that within that authority was the authority to allow defendant to pay the fees late. There are two problems with that argument. First, as we explained above, the trial court did not find that defendant had fully complied with the provisions of the diversion agreement, so we have no occasion to search for implicit actions on the trial court's part to support that finding. Second, Ball does not allow us to infer trial court actions—in this case, an extension of time to pay fees that the court had authority to waive—but, rather, only factual findings.
Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of conviction and for sentencing.
- No Cases Found