State v. Zepeda, 360 P.3d 715

Defendant convicted of one count unlawful possession of methamphetamine and three counts failure to appear; sentenced to six months jail and $2,400 in court-appointed attorney fees ($600 per count).
At sentencing defense counsel explained defendant was unemployed, had past homelessness and drug use but had since improved and was living with in-laws; counsel expressly objected to fee imposition as defendant lacked ability to pay.
Prosecutor sought 18 months DOC; defense asked for 24 months probation; court imposed jail plus fees.
Trial court stated it would find defendant able to pay, relying on a presumption that she could perform minimum-wage work.
On appeal defendant argued fee imposition violated ORS 161.665(4) because the state failed to show she "is or may be able to pay" and the court impermissibly shifted the burden to her.
Court of Appeals agreed: reversed the attorney-fee portion of the judgment and affirmed remainder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court could impose court-appointed attorney fees under ORS 161.665(4)	State: court expressly found defendant is or may be able to pay; nothing in record suggests she cannot work	Defendant: statute forbids fees unless record shows she is or may be able to pay; trial court shifted burden by presuming ability to do minimum-wage work	Court: Reversed fee award — trial court impermissibly shifted burden via presumption and record lacks evidence defendant is or may be able to pay

State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or. App. 630 (court must have record information that defendant is or may be able to pay attorney fees)
State v. Kanuch, 231 Or. App. 20 (court lacks authority to impose fees absent finding that defendant is or may be able to pay)
State v. Wallace, 258 Or. App. 800 (fees cannot be imposed based on speculative family support or windfalls)
State v. Eshaia, 253 Or. App. 676 (disability benefits in record supported fee imposition)
State v. Gensler, 266 Or. App. 1 (evidence of education and prior employability supported inference of future ability to pay)
State v. Jaimes-Pineda, 271 Or. App. 75 (testimony of imminent reemployment supported fee imposition)
State v. Hunt, 271 Or. App. 347 (record reflecting age, health, addiction, and lack of employment insufficient to support fees)
State v. Normile, 52 Or. App. 33 (courtroom impressions alone do not create sufficient record to support fee imposition)
State v. Erickson, 260 Or. App. 438 (declining to revisit Pendergrapht and Kanuch holdings)