State v. Mejia-Espinoza, 341 P.3d 180

Defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree (ORS 163.375), unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree (ORS 163.411), and sexual abuse in the first degree (ORS 163.427); sentenced to 200 months in prison.
On appeal, he raised nine assignments of error; the court addresses only the ninth regarding court-appointed attorney fees and rejects the others.
The trial court imposed $6,000 in attorney fees despite lack of evidence showing defendant’s ability to pay.
Appellate review under ORAP 5.45(1) allows plain error review when unpreserved errors exist.
The record showed minimal evidence of defendant’s current or future ability to pay; past work history did not establish ability to pay during long incarceration.
The court reverses the attorney-fee portion of the judgment but affirms the remainder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the attorney-fee order violates ability-to-pay requirements	State argues no plain error; evidence showed some prior work	Defendant contends no adequate evidence of ability to pay	Plain error; reverse the fee award

State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714 (2014) (cannot impose fees without ability-to-pay evidence)
State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or App 630 (2012) (fees cannot be imposed on speculation of ability to pay)
State v. Kanuch, 231 Or App 20 (2009) (state bears burden to show defendant is or may be able to pay)
State v. Eshaia, 253 Or App 676 (2012) (evidence of disability income supports fee imposition)
State v. Below, 264 Or App 384 (2014) (evidence of past work insufficient to guarantee future payment)
State v. Delgado-Juarez, 263 Or App 706 (2014) (no financial resources evidence → correct error)
State v. Chavez, 263 Or App 187 (2014) (correct error under similar circumstances)
State v. Callentano, 263 Or App 190 (2014) (correct error under similar circumstances)
State v. Baco, 262 Or App 169 (2014) (not substantial given probationary limitations)