State v. Simkins, 330 P.3d 1235

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree theft and two counts of first-degree criminal mistreatment.
Trial court imposed a $35 "offense surcharge" for each conviction under Oregon Laws 2009, ch 659, § 2.
The statute limited surcharges to offenses committed on or after October 1, 2009 and before July 1, 2011.
The indictment and trial evidence showed the crimes occurred between December 1, 2008 and May 30, 2009—before the statute’s effective date.
The State conceded the surcharge was unauthorized but urged the appellate court not to exercise discretion to correct the unpreserved error, arguing the amount was small and could have been corrected in the trial court or by post‑conviction motion.
The court chose to correct the error on appeal to avoid needless additional proceedings and judicial inefficiency, reversing the portion of the judgment requiring the surcharges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing offense surcharges for crimes committed before the statute’s effective date	The State conceded error but argued appellate court should decline to correct it because the surcharge was minor and could be remedied in trial court or by post‑conviction motion	Defendant asked the court to exercise ORAP 5.45(1) discretion to correct an obvious, unpreserved error apparent on the record	Court reversed surcharge: error plain (surcharge authorized only for offenses on or after Oct 1, 2009) and exercised discretion to correct it for judicial economy

Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (appellate discretion to recognize unpreserved error should be exercised with caution)
State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516 (review may be warranted to avoid unnecessary proceedings and promote judicial efficiency)
State v. Cleveland, 148 Or App 97 (appellate court may grant relief equivalent to post‑conviction remedy to avoid procedural hoops)