State v Mashadda

Plain error review requires the error to be “apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013). “[W]here the prosecutor presents some evidence to support restitution of a particular amount, and the defendant does not raise an objection to the amount of restitution . . . the trial court does not plainly err in imposing restitution in that amount.” State v. West, 249 Or App 257, 258, 274 P3d 892 (2012) (summarizing State v. Gruver, 247 Or App 8, 17, 268 P3d 760 (2011)).

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment imposing restitution.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court plainly erred because the record did not support the specific amount of restitution ordered.  Defendant did not preserve this argument before the trial court.  In response, the State asserted that the error was not plain because there was “some evidence in the record to support” the restitution amount, thus requiring the Court to decide between competing factual inferences.  Plain error review requires the error to be “apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences.”  State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013). “[W]here the prosecutor presents some evidence to support restitution of a particular amount, and the defendant does not raise an objection to the amount of restitution . . . the trial court does not plainly err in imposing restitution in that amount.” State v. West, 249 Or App 257, 258, 274 P3d 892 (2012) (summarizing State v. Gruver, 247 Or App 8, 17, 268 P3d 760 (2011)).  The Court found that there was some evidence in the record to support the imposed amount of restitution.  Thus, the Court held that the alleged error was not plain because the court was required to “make a decision about competing factual inferences in the record.”  Affirmed.