State v. Partain, 446 P.3d 561

Defendant was on probation in five cases; police later arrested him for methamphetamine possession and charged him with second-degree theft (Walmart) in a separate case (17CR34703).
The state moved to revoke probation in the five cases; the court consolidated and held a probation-violation hearing and found violations.
The theft charge proceeded to a bench trial the same day; the court convicted defendant of second-degree theft though defendant testified he paid $138 for some merchandise.
At sentencing, the state asked that restitution for the theft ($138 payable to Walmart) be attached to one of the probation-revocation cases so it could be collected during post-prison supervision.
The court announced restitution ($138) during sentencing in the theft case but then included a $138 restitution order payable to Walmart in the judgment for one probation case (17CR07681), referencing the theft case—an order defendant did not specifically contest at trial.
On appeal, defendant challenged imposition of restitution in 17CR07681; the court reversed that restitution order and affirmed the other probation judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be imposed in case 17CR07681 based on losses from the theft in a separate case (17CR34703)	Restitution may be attached to one of the other cases for collection during supervision; court acted within discretion	Restitution in 17CR07681 was not based on crimes of conviction in that case nor on conduct defendant admitted; error appeared first in the judgment so no preservation required	Reversed restitution in 17CR07681; restitution cannot be imposed in one conviction based on a different crime/unaired admission; remand for resentencing in 17CR07681
Whether defendant forfeited the challenge by failing to object at sentencing	State: defendant should have preserved the issue by objection	Defendant: error appeared for the first time in the judgment so no preservation required	Court: no preservation required because the error first appeared in the written judgment and court had not announced imposing restitution in the probation case

State v. Lewis, 236 Or. App. 49 (2010) (error appearing for first time in the judgment need not be preserved at trial)
State v. Hillman, 293 Or. App. 231 (2018) (fee or charge appearing only in judgment and not announced by court may be raised on appeal)
State v. Howett, 184 Or. App. 352 (2002) (restitution limited to damages arising from the facts of the convicted crime or other criminal conduct admitted by defendant)
State v. Dorsey, 259 Or. App. 441 (2013) (reversing restitution imposed for conduct outside admitted date range; restitution must be tied to convicted or admitted conduct)