State v. Morgan, 359 P.3d 1242

Defendant convicted of multiple theft/trespass offenses after stealing metal sprinklers from a nursery and selling some to a scrap yard; police recovered some sprinklers and the scrap yard returned some.
At trial, the nursery owner estimated each sprinkler was "approximately $10" and testified the total theft was "over $1,000." No precise inventory or valuation beyond that testimony was introduced.
State requested restitution of $7,000 originally, then sought $3,000 for the nursery and $84 for the scrap yard at sentencing; the record does not explain the basis for reducing $7,000 to $3,000 or for selecting $3,000 rather than the only trial estimate (~$1,000).
Trial court ordered restitution of $3,084 (including $84 to the scrap yard) and entered sentence; defendant did not object to restitution at sentencing and appealed, claiming lack of evidentiary support.
Defendant raised his restitution claim as plain error on appeal; the court found the $3,000 nursery award unsupported by the record but sustained the $84 award to the scrap yard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution awarded ($3,000 to nursery) is supported by record under ORS 137.106	Some evidence of economic loss (owner's testimony) was presented; that suffices where defendant did not object	Restitution must be supported by evidence of the specific amount; record only shows "over $1,000," not $3,000	Court held trial court plainly erred; $3,000 award unsupported and remanded for resentencing
Whether plain-error review is appropriate for unpreserved restitution claim	State: error not "plain" on face of record; if plain, appellate court should decline to exercise discretion to correct	Defendant: error is apparent on record and warrants correction despite lack of preservation	Court found error met plain-error criteria and exercised discretion to correct it
Whether the $84 awarded to scrap yard was plainly erroneous	State: evidence supported $84 for scrap yard return loss	Defendant: (implicitly) entire restitution challenged	Court held $84 award was not plainly erroneous
Whether appellate policy against correcting unpreserved errors (Ailes) precludes relief	State: preserving error would have allowed more evidence; courts should avoid correcting to encourage preservation	Defendant: lack of objection did not undermine the owner’s estimate; minimal likelihood of additional useful evidence	Court exercised discretion to correct because interests of justice favored removing unsupported obligation

State v. Brown, 800 P.2d 259 (Or. 1990) (plain-error standard for unpreserved appellate review)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 823 P.2d 956 (Or. 1991) (factors for exercising discretion to correct unpreserved error)
State v. Harrington, 211 P.3d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (restitution award review is question of law; reversed where value not established)
State v. Gruver, 268 P.3d 760 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (some evidence of damages may suffice when amount is supported and defendant made no objection)
State v. Martinez, 280 P.3d 399 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (correcting plain error where part of restitution lacked record support)
State v. White, 298 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (exercising discretion to correct unsupported restitution award)
State v. Neese, 210 P.3d 933 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate relief appropriate where substantial fine unsupported by evidence)