422 January 8, 2025 No. 39
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. CHRISTOPHER WADE WEINGART, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 22CR25234; A181632
Eric Butterfield, Judge. Submitted November 20, 2024. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Nora Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. PER CURIAM Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 422 (2025) 423
PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and reckless driving, ORS 811.140, and sentenced to probation on both counts. At sentencing, the court announced that defendant would be subject to “a drug package, an alcohol package” as conditions of probation, and it identified some specific con- ditions in open court (abstaining from the use or possession of illegal controlled substances, alcohol, and marijuana; get- ting an evaluation and complying with recommended treat- ment; and attending a victim impact panel). The court then entered a judgment that included a number of special con- ditions of probation that had not been announced, includ- ing that defendant submit to a polygraph examination at the request of a supervising officer and that defendant not knowingly associate with persons who use or possess con- trolled substances illegally. On appeal, in three assignments of error, defen- dant challenges the special conditions that appeared for the first time in the judgment. He argues that the court erred by imposing conditions in the judgment that it did not announce at sentencing, that the court also erred in impos- ing the polygraph condition because he was not convicted of a sexual offense, and that the court also erred in imposing the association condition because it is overbroad and uncon- stitutionally vague. The state concedes that the court erred in failing to announce at sentencing all of the conditions included in the judgment and that the case should be remanded for resen- tencing on that basis. 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. A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” (Internal citations omitted.)). We agree and remand on that basis. As for defendant’s second and third assignments of error, we decline to address those issues, instead leaving it to the trial court to consider in the first instance defendant’s arguments regarding those conditions. See State v. Anotta, 302 Or App
424 State v. Weingart
176, 177 & n 1, 460 P3d 543, rev den, 366 Or 552 (2020) (sim- ilar disposition). Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.