374 P.3d 1013
Washington Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R.2016Background
- Defendant was convicted in case C130161CR of second-degree assault and unlawful use of a weapon; sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms and ordered to pay $13,525 in court‑appointed attorney fees.
- In separate case C131463CR defendant was convicted of tampering with a witness and given a consecutive 25‑month term; that conviction affirmed.
- Defendant did not preserve an objection to the attorney‑fee order but asked the appellate court to correct the error under ORAP 5.45(1).
- The State argued the record contained evidence suggesting defendant might be able to pay (testimony that he worked for “Global Solutions,” sold online personal training, and had been looking at online job postings).
- The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court plainly erred in imposing $13,525 in fees without evidence of ability to pay and whether discretionary correction was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court plainly erred by ordering $13,525 in court‑appointed attorney fees on a record silent about ability to pay | State: record shows defendant had worked recently and was looking for jobs, so court could infer ability to pay | Defendant: no preserved objection but asks court to correct plain error because record is silent on ability to pay | Court: Plain error. Reversed fee award because State failed to prove defendant is or may be able to pay; appellate court exercised discretion to correct error |
| Whether other assignments of error require reversal | State: not addressed in opinion summary | Defendant: raised other assignments of error on appeal | Court: Other assignments rejected without written discussion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Belen, 277 Or App 47 (reversal where State failed to prove defendant could pay substantial attorney fees)
- State v. Tiscornia, 272 Or App 753 (insufficient inference of future ability to pay from stale employment evidence)
- State v. Mejia‑Espinoza, 267 Or App 682 (reversal where prior employment did not support finding defendant could pay attorney fees)