State v. Martino, 245 Or. App. 594

Defendant was convicted of multiple felonies and a misdemeanor arising from one evening of violent conduct toward his wife and stepson.
The acts included assault, criminal mistreatment, attempted murder, rape, unlawful sexual penetration, strangulation, and eluding police.
The trial court sua sponte imposed a compensatory fine of $10,000 to the wife for mental health treatment under ORS 137.101.
There was no evidence that the wife incurred, would incur, or could incur any mental health expenses or other pecuniary loss.
Neither party objected to the compensatory fine at trial, and the issue was raised on appeal as plain error.
The court reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing a compensatory fine without evidence of pecuniary harm is plain error.	Martino (state) argues plain error and seeks review despite lack of objection.	Martino contends no error or waiver based on strategic non-appearance to object.	Yes; plain error and reversible on review.
Whether the court should exercise discretion to review unpreserved plain error.	State says discretion should be exercised only if substantial reasons support preservation.	Martino argues discretion should not be denied simply for lack of objection; remedy enhanced by review.	Yes; this court exercises discretion to correct the error.

State v. Drinkwater, 231 Or.App. 6 (2009) (plain-error compensatory fines without evidence of pecuniary harm)
State v. Neese, 229 Or.App. 182 (2009) (plain-error review of compensatory fines)
State v. Morris, 217 Or.App. 271 (2007) (discretion to review unpreserved error in plain-error context)
State v. Gornick, 340 Or. 160 (2006) (waiver and strategic nonobjection theory in plain-error analysis)
State v. Lovern, 234 Or.App. 502 (2010) (state's theory must be plausible to deem strategic waiver)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, 312 Or. 376 (1991) (factors for exercising discretion in plain-error review)