State v. Cid

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• exercising discretion to correct the court’s plain error where it “mistakenly thought that it was required to impose the fines” under ORS 137.286 and misunderstood its discretion to waive the fines in whole or in part
• exercising discretion to correct the court’s plain error where it “mistakenly thought that it was required to impose the fines” under ORS 137.286 and misunderstood its discretion to waive the fines in whole or in part
• accepting the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred by imposing $200 fines on the defendant’s felony convictions “based on the court’s erroneous understanding that imposition of the fines was mandatory,” and exercising discretion to correct the error
• accepting the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred by imposing $200 fines on the defendant’s felony convictions “based on the court’s erroneous understanding that imposition of the fines was mandatory,” and exercising discretion to correct the error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• State v. Cid
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-02-28· cited 2×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Vanornum
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2013-12-27· cited 546×
• State v. D. J. M.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2020-04-09· cited 27×
• State v. Manning
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-10-30· cited 9×