State v. Humphrey

"An error is 'plain' when it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without our having to choose among competing inferences." State v. Humphrey, 327 Or.App. 344, 348 (2023).

Defendant appealed a restitution order by the trial court after conviction for misdemeanor criminal trespass. The trial court continued the restitution hearing after defendant twice failed to appear to the hearing. On appeal, defendant argues that by continuing the restitution hearing without defendant present, the trial court violated defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution. The Court analyzed whether the issue here deserved plain error analysis. "An error is 'plain' when it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without our having to choose among competing inferences." State v. Humphrey, 327 Or.App. 344, 348 (2023). The Court found that while defendant asserted a state statutory right, defendant failed to invoke either federal amendment. Additionally, by failing to cite to similar cases which demonstrate the trial court's inability to continue without violating defendant's constitutionally-protected rights, the Court found that defendant failed to substantiate their claim for plain error review. The Court rejected that the error was "so grave" so as to "merit the exercise of [the Court’s] discretion to correct an unpreserved error." State v. Humphrey, 327, Or.App. 344, 349 (2023). Affirmed.