State v. Howard, 424 P.3d 803

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree theft by receiving for pawning victim S’s jewelry on December 15 and 16, 2013; a third count (Dec. 22) was dismissed.
State sought restitution: $550 to Hillsboro Pawn for multiple pawn dates (Dec. 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22) and $236.81 to J (S’s husband) for 7.12 hours of lost wages on Jan. 2, 2014.
At the restitution hearing, the state presented evidence identifying which specific pieces were pawned on which dates; Hillsboro Pawn’s losses attributable to Dec. 15 and 16 were $140 and $50 respectively.
J testified he left work upset after a phone call and missed work on Jan. 2; there was no evidence tying that absence to defendant’s presence or actions on that day.
Trial court ordered $550 to Hillsboro Pawn (jointly and severally with defendant’s girlfriend) and $236.81 to J; defendant appealed, challenging portions of the restitution award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution to Hillsboro Pawn for pawnings on dates other than Dec. 15–16	State: restitution for all pawned items returned to S is proper; trial court may fact-find at restitution hearing	Defendant: may only be ordered to pay for losses caused by criminal conduct of which he was convicted or admitted (Dec. 15–16 only)	Court: error — restitution limited to losses from Dec. 15 ($140) and Dec. 16 ($50); award for other dates vacated and plain error corrected.
Restitution to J for lost wages on Jan. 2, 2014	State: J’s lost wages flowed from the thefts because household refused defendant entry due to the thefts	Defendant: no causal evidence linking convicted thefts to J’s missed work on Jan. 2	Court: error — no proof of causal link; award for $236.81 vacated and plain error corrected.
Assignments two and three (challenge other parts of restitution)	State: objections were invited or waived	Defendant: raised them on appeal	Held: waived/invited — court rejects these assignments without discussion.
Standard of review/plain-error discretion	State: restitution factfinding permissible; cite causation cases	Defendant: unpreserved errors, ask for plain-error review; law forbids restitution for crimes not convicted/admitted	Court: applied plain-error test and Ailes discretionary factors; corrected clear legal errors.

State v. Kirkland, 268 Or. App. 420 (2015) (guilty plea scope can permit restitution for all admitted/covered criminal conduct)
State v. Muhammad, 265 Or. App. 412 (2014) (trial court may not impose restitution for conduct outside plea period absent admission)
State v. Dorsey, 259 Or. App. 441 (2013) (defendant cannot be required to pay restitution for damages from crimes not admitted or convicted)
State v. Gerhardt, 360 Or. 629 (2016) (two restitution prerequisites: causation and foreseeability)
State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581 (2016) (foreseeability test for restitution damages)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376 (1991) (factors for discretionary correction of unpreserved error)
State v. Benz, 289 Or. App. 366 (2017) (restitution legal requirements under ORS 137.106 are questions of law)