State v. Laune

“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20, 191 P3d 637 (2008).

Defendant was convicted of violating a stalking protective order and appealed the trial court’s order to pay $330 in fees for his court-appointed attorney. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred when it imposed the fees since this obligation may only be imposed if the evidence supports a finding that the Defendant is able to pay. In response, the State argued the trial court did not err in relying on Defendant’s security deposit for its determination that Defendant was able to pay the fees. Defendant failed to preserve his argument for appeal but the State conceded the preservation argument. However, the Court is obligated to make its own inquiry into preservation. “The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20, 191 P3d 637 (2008). The Defendant’s objections failed to give notice of his argument, so the state or trial court had an adequate chance to respond. Affirmed.