State v. Howard

When it comes to a restitution award, the State must prove that there were “(1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420 (2015). It is “plain error, in fact—for a trial court to impose restitution based on activities that occurred outside the period of time covered by the defendant’s plea agreement.” State v. Muhammad, 265 Or App 412 (2014).

Defendant appealed two convictions of theft in the first degree and an order to pay restitution. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s award of restitution and to the portion of the restitution that required him to pay $236.81 for lost wages. On appeal, Defendant argued that the restitution damages were erroneously awarded and were given in plain error. In response, the State argued that the restitution damages were correctly awarded and that there was a causal relationship between Defendant’s conduct and the lost wages. When it comes to a restitution award, the State must prove that there were “(1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420 (2015). It is “plain error, in fact—for a trial court to impose restitution based on activities that occurred outside the period of time covered by the defendant’s plea agreement.” State v. Muhammad, 265 Or App 412 (2014). The Court held that plain error was committed because Defendant was only charged with theft by receiving on December 15 and 16 and pleaded guilty to the items on that date and was not convicted of any other offense, therefore any other restitution awards based on thefts from different dates were erroneous. Remanded for sentencing; otherwise affirmed.