State v. Hernandez-Camacho, 375 P.3d 588

Defendant convicted of multiple counts that the trial court later merged into a single first‑degree sexual abuse conviction; an amended judgment removed the phrase "for sentencing purposes."
Defendant sentenced to 150 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $3,095 in court‑appointed attorney fees.
Defendant did not preserve a challenge to the fee award at trial but sought appellate review under the plain‑error doctrine (ORAP 5.45(1)).
Defendant argued the record lacked evidence that he "is or may be able to pay" fees, as required by ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4).
The State pointed to record evidence of defendant’s education (high school diploma, GED, some college), English skills learned in jail, long and consistent work history including owning a landscaping business, and testimony he had no debt and could make ends meet.
The trial court’s imposition of fees was upheld on appeal; the merger issue was rendered moot by the amended judgment and not addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court‑appointed attorney fees may be imposed without evidence defendant "is or may be able to pay"	State: record supports a reasonable inference of future ability based on education, work history, business ownership, and no debt	Defendant: record lacks sufficient evidence of present or future ability to pay; claim preserved only by plain‑error review	Affirmed: record supported nonspeculative inference defendant may be able to pay after release; no plain error

Dept. of Human Servs. v. B. A., 263 Or. App. 675 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (mootness doctrine)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376 (Or. 1991) (plain‑error doctrine described)
State v. Gensler, 266 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (education and employability supported future ability to pay fees)
State v. Dylla, 275 Or. App. 652 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (long employment history and prospects supported fee imposition)
State v. Zepeda, 274 Or. App. 401 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (income source, education, or future employment prospects are relevant)
State v. Mejia‑Espinoza, 267 Or. App. 682 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (past work alone insufficient to infer ability to pay for long incarceration)
State v. Tiscornia, 272 Or. App. 753 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (limited past work did not support fee award)
State v. Belen, 277 Or. App. 47 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (sparse prior employment evidence insufficient)
State v. Boss, 278 Or. App. 380 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (insufficient record showing ability to pay attorney fees)
State v. Larson, 222 Or. App. 498 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (record inference can support fees when assets or earning capacity appear)