State v. Mendoza, 401 P.3d 288

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted first-degree assault with a firearm and one count of unlawful use of a weapon; waived jury trial and stipulated to a 72-month sentence.
The plea petition did not stipulate to $1,858 in court-appointed attorney fees; the trial court nonetheless imposed those fees at sentencing.
At sentencing the court asked limited questions about ability to pay; defendant stated he expected to be able to work after release but gave no concrete financial, educational, or employment history details.
Defendant did not object below and raised the issue on appeal, asking for plain-error review under ORAP 5.45(1).
The appellate court reviewed whether the record contained nonspeculative evidence that defendant "is or may be able to pay" attorney fees as required by Oregon law and precedent.

Issue	Defendant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in imposing $1,858 in court-appointed attorney fees without evidence defendant "is or may be able to pay"	Trial court plainly erred because the record lacked objective, nonspeculative evidence of present or future ability to pay given a six-year sentence, youth (17), and felony barriers to employment	Defendant’s statement that he intends to work after release is sufficient to infer possible ability to pay; not obviously erroneous to rely on that admission	Reversed fee portion: the court erred. A bare statement of intent to work and absence of disability is insufficient to support fees; record must contain objective evidence of financial resources or realistic future employment prospects

State v. Coverstone, 260 Or. App. 714 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (plain error if court imposes counsel fees without legally sufficient evidence of ability to pay)
State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or. App. 630 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (fees cannot be imposed on pure speculation about future funds)
State v. Kanuch, 231 Or. App. 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (state bears burden to prove defendant is or may be able to pay fees)
State v. Gensler, 266 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (affirmed fees where record showed education and prior employability)
State v. Mejia-Espinoza, 267 Or. App. 682 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (reversed fees where only sparse past-work evidence prevented nonspeculative assessment of future payability)
State v. Tiscornia, 272 Or. App. 753 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (reversed fees where record contained only minimal prior work history)

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; judgment otherwise affirmed.