State v. Toth, 442 P.3d 1089

Defendant managed a Beaverton-area strip club; he and co-defendant Moreno‑Hernandez brought a 13‑year‑old girl (S) to the club, had her work there, split prostitution proceeds, and defendant had sex with S.
S was placed in legal custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS) and sent to Mingus Mountain, a treatment facility for sexually exploited girls; DHS or Oregon Health Plan paid for the treatment.
Defendant pleaded guilty to second‑degree sodomy, first‑degree sexual abuse, and compelling prostitution (all relating to S), and to a separate promoting prostitution count not involving S.
At sentencing the trial court imposed a $200 fine and a $150,000 compensatory fine payable to S, plus a 180‑month consecutive prison term; defendant objected to the compensatory fine for lack of evidence of economic damages.
The Court of Appeals reversed the compensatory fine portion but did not remand for resentencing; this Court granted review and remanded for resentencing, concluding the trial court erred in imposing the compensatory fine.

Issue	State's Argument	Toth's Argument	Held
Whether a compensatory fine payable to the victim (S) could be imposed	The victim’s treatment at Mingus Mountain resulted in economic damages supporting a compensatory fine	No evidence S personally incurred economic damages; compensatory fine improper	Court held trial court erred: record shows DHS/OHP paid treatment, so S did not suffer recoverable economic damages for those expenses
Whether defendant’s plea or sentencing waiver constituted a stipulation to prerequisites for a compensatory fine	Not argued below; on review, state contended plea allowed fines at court’s discretion, implying stipulation	Defendant argued he did not stipulate to compensatory fine or to S having economic damages	Court rejected state’s late‑raised argument: no record evidence defendant stipulated to compensatory fine or damages
Whether remand for resentencing is required after deleting compensatory fine	Court of Appeals had declined to remand	Toth argued deletion should stand without remand	Court held remand required because compensatory designation may reflect trial court’s overall sentencing intent and alternative recipients (e.g., DHS) remain options

State v. Moreno‑Hernandez, 365 Or. 175, 442 P.3d 1092 (Or. 2019) (interpreting compensatory fine prerequisites and holding child’s medical expenses paid by third party are not the child’s economic damages)
State v. Barkley, 315 Or. 420, 846 P.2d 390 (Or. 1993) (third prerequisite: damages must be recoverable in a civil action)
State v. Edson, 329 Or. 127, 985 P.2d 1253 (Or. 1999) (remand and resentencing principles when fines are altered)
State v. Moreno‑Hernandez, 290 Or. App. 468, 415 P.3d 1088 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (Court of Appeals decision addressing compensatory fine issues later reviewed)
State v. Toth, 290 Or. App. 925, 417 P.3d 479 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (Court of Appeals decision reversing compensatory fine but not remanding)