426 P.3d 252
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant convicted of unlawful use of a weapon (ORS 166.220) and menacing (ORS 163.190).
- Trial court imposed $642 in court-appointed attorney fees as part of the judgment.
- The only record evidence about ability to pay was the court asking if defendant had been "working before all this," to which defendant answered yes.
- Defendant did not preserve the issue below; appealed, arguing plain error in imposing fees without evidence of ability to pay.
- The State conceded that, under the limited record, imposition of fees was plain error and agreed reversal of that portion was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in imposing court-appointed attorney fees without evidence the defendant is or may be able to pay | State conceded error given the sparse evidence of ability to pay | Trial court plainly erred because no evidence showed present or likely future ability to pay fees | Court reversed the $642 attorney-fee portion of the judgment and otherwise affirmed the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coverstone, 260 Or. App. 714 (2014) (trial court commits plain error by imposing appointed counsel fees without evidence of ability to pay)
- State v. Orozoco-Navarro, 292 Or. App. 31 (2018) (similar plain-error conclusion under sparse record of past work)
- State v. Belen, 277 Or. App. 47 (2016) (plain error where record only showed defendant had worked in the past)
- State v. Mejia-Espinoza, 267 Or. App. 682 (2014) (insufficient evidence about historical earnings or post-release employment prospects to support fees)
- State v. Sanders, 285 Or. App. 878 (2017) (exercise of appellate discretion to correct plain error in imposing appointed counsel fees)