State v. Barr, 545 P.3d 772

Justin Allen Barr was convicted of multiple property crimes involving several businesses in Linn County, Oregon, on April 21, 2022.
On appeal, Barr challenged aspects of both his convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court.
The convictions included counts related specifically to acts at the Tangent Inn, based on surveillance video evidence.
Barr did not preserve objections to the upward durational departure sentences at trial but sought review under the "plain error" doctrine.
The sentencing judgment also included an unannounced requirement for Barr to pay “per diem” jail fees for time served.
The trial court did not discuss or announce the “per diem” fees at sentencing, introducing potential procedural error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Evidence (Counts 6-8)	Evidence sufficient to identify Barr as perpetrator	Evidence insufficient to link Barr to Tangent Inn crimes	Affirmed; evidence legally sufficient
Upward Durational Departures	No objection preserved; issue not obvious/plain error	Departure sentences constitued plain error deserving appellate review	Affirmed; not plain error, legal dispute
Unannounced Per Diem Fee in Judgment	Error is moot or harmless since no fees will be collected	Judgment error; sentence must be announced in open court	Reversed and remanded for resentencing

State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47 (criteria for sufficiency of evidence on review)
State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (requirements for plain error review)
State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (plain error must be obvious and not reasonably disputed)
State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574 (sentences must be announced in open court; sentencing errors require resentencing)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. A., 324 Or App 445 (party asserting mootness has burden to show court's decision has no practical effect)