State v. Walton

Pursuant to ORAP 5.45(1), the court has the “discretionary authority to review an unpreserved error that is plain . . . obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the face of the record.”

Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment which ordered him to pay restitution to the victim of a crime he committed. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court lacked authority to order restitution because it did not comply with the framework of ORS 147.500 to 147.550, the statutory procedures for victims who assert violations of their constitutional rights under Article I, section 42 of the Oregon Constitution. Additionally, Defendant requested the Court review the restitution order as a “plain error.” In response, the State argued that Defendant’s asserted error was not “plain” because it was not “obvious,” and the asserted error was an open question of law. Additionally, the State argued that even if the order was a “plain error,” the Court should exercise its discretion and fix the error. Pursuant to ORAP 5.45(1), the court has the “discretionary authority to review an unpreserved error that is plain . . . obvious, and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the face of the record.” The Court held that even if the trial court erred in ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the victim outside the framework of ORS 147.500 to 147.550, it would not exercise its discretion to correct the error because the error was not “grave.”

Affirmed.