State v. Ashley, 240 Or. App. 795

Defendant Ashley pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated murder, burglary, assault, sexual abuse, theft, and unlawful use of a weapon.
Sentence included an order to pay $2,976 in court-appointed attorney fees.
Defendant asked the court to waive the fees due to his lengthy sentence, but did not request findings on ability to pay.
The trial court declined to waive fees and did not make express findings about defendant's ability to pay.
Two statutes authorize imposing costs for court-appointed attorneys, but require a showing that the defendant is or may be able to pay and consideration of financial resources.
Supreme Court precedent requires a two-step process: determine ability to pay and amount, with consideration of financial resources.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the failure to make findings on ability to pay is preserved.	State argues no preservation issue because statutes require ability-to-pay consideration.	Ashley contends the court erred by not making findings on ability to pay.	Not preserved; no express request for findings.

Bacote v. Johnson, 333 Or. 28 (2001) (two-step process for imposing costs; require ability to pay and consideration of resources)
State v. Ross, 200 Or. App. 1 (2005) (require findings when ordering court-appointed fees under prior rule)
Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209 (2008) (preservation rules apply to failure to make special findings)
State v. Kanuch, 231 Or. App. 20 (2009) (absence of evidence of ability to pay cannot support fee imposition)
State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. J. N., 225 Or. App. 139 (2009) (court discretion not to exercise plain-error review for failure to make findings)