State v. Lobue, 304 Or. App. 13

Background

On March 23, 2017, police stopped Lobue driving a black 1986 Toyota pickup whose VIN matched a white pickup the victim had reported stolen March 6; the pickup showed fresh spray paint, altered bed, mismatched plates, and many filed/down keys, including a broken key in the ignition.
Lobue pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a vehicle (and separately to possession of methamphetamine); he did not make a formal on-the-record admission that he caused the listed damage.
Victim submitted repair estimates exceeding $3,000 (cracked windshield, clutch replacement, bed replacement, paint restoration, etc.); the state offered the vehicle’s fair market value of $2,800 and towing costs as the restitution amount because repair costs exceeded market value.
At sentencing the trial court credited evidence (trooper testimony, victim estimates, Lobue’s statements to the trooper) and found the vehicle’s damage resulted from Lobue’s unauthorized possession/use; it awarded restitution equal to fair market value plus towing and directed the clerk to add collection fees and set payment scheduling under ORS 161.675.
Lobue appealed, arguing (1) restitution covered damages not shown to be caused by the crime of conviction or admitted on the record, (2) the repair estimates were inadmissible hearsay (and violated confrontation), and (3) the judgment improperly authorized collection fees and clerk action.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed: it found sufficient evidence linking damages to Lobue’s possession/use, upheld admission of the estimates at sentencing, and sustained the court’s authority to direct clerk action and add collection fees.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Lobue's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may include vehicle damages not shown to have occurred on the precise plea date or admitted on-the-record	Restitution may cover economic damages caused by the criminal activities to which the defendant was convicted or that he admitted; evidence supported that damages occurred during Lobue’s possession/use	Only towing could be awarded because the plea covered unlawful use on March 23 and the state did not prove damages occurred on that date or that Lobue admitted them on the record	Court held restitution could include the damages: evidence allowed a nonspeculative inference that damages occurred during Lobue’s possession/use, so restitution proper
Whether Lobue’s out-of-court statements and trooper observations could be considered as admissions/evidence of causation	Statements and officer observations are admissible at sentencing to show conduct and causation	Lobue argued his statement about spray-painting was not an unequivocal, on-the-record admission and thus inadmissible to support restitution	Court treated the statements and observations as admissible evidence from which causation could be inferred
Admissibility of repair estimates and vehicle valuation at restitution hearing (hearsay / confrontation)	Restitution hearings are sentencing proceedings; hearsay is admissible with minimal indicia of reliability; no due-process confrontation right at sentencing	The estimates were hearsay and, without cross-examination, violated confrontation protections	Court held rules of evidence do not strictly apply at sentencing, Williams v. New York controls, and admission was proper (no confrontation right to bar them)
Whether the court exceeded authority by authorizing addition of collection fees and directing clerk to schedule payments under ORS 161.675	Court may order collection fees under ORS 1.202 and direct clerks to act under statutes; ordering clerk to include fees and schedule payments is permissible	Lobue argued the judgment improperly delegated fee additions and scheduling to the clerk without further notice	Court held the judgment was within authority: ORS 1.202 allows adding collection fees and directing clerk action; any clerk misaction is for the trial court to address

Key Cases Cited

State v. Parsons, 287 Or App 351 (state bears burden to prove by preponderance that defendant’s criminal activities caused victim’s economic damages)
State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420 (restitution limited to damages from offenses convicted or other criminal conduct admitted)
State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172 (restitution is part of sentencing; sentencing may consider broader evidence)
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (no constitutional confrontation right at sentencing; courts may rely on out-of-court materials)
State v. Rasool Islam-Islam, 359 Or 796 (measure of restitution for stolen property is fair market value at time of conversion)
State v. Dorsey, 259 Or App 441 (cannot impose restitution for conduct outside the scope of the conviction or plea)
United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365 (hearsay may be admitted at sentencing if accompanied by minimal indicia of reliability)
State v. Foos, 295 Or App 116 (when judgment directs clerk to act pursuant to statute, clerk is presumed to act in accordance with statute)