State v. Henry
| Decision Date | 13 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | A171734 |
| Citation | 315 Or.App. 169,499 P.3d 863 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jason Michael HENRY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jordan R. Silk, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a supplemental judgment awarding restitution entered after he pleaded guilty to burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. Defendant asserts that the trial court (1) erred by ordering restitution for medical costs stemming from the victim's emergency department visit; (2) plainly erred by ordering restitution for economic damages arising from criminal activity that defendant did not plead guilty to, or admit to having committed; and (3) erred by denying his motion for substitute counsel. For the reasons explained here, we reverse the restitution award for the medical costs stemming from the emergency department visit and otherwise affirm.
On an evening in October, Archer was working on his car in his driveway while his two teenage boys were playing football in the street with their friends. Defendant, who spent the evening at a local bar, drove by Archer's home. As defendant passed, one of the teenagers waved at him and exclaimed, "nice truck." Defendant became enraged, pulled his truck over, and then got out to chase the teenagers while yelling threats at them. Defendant chased the teenagers into Archer's garage, where defendant grabbed a crowbar and struck Archer's son, B, injuring B's hand and causing B to hit his head. Archer subdued defendant temporarily, but defendant was able to return to his truck and armed himself with a firefighter-style axe. Defendant started approaching the house again but was stopped by Archer, who held defendant at gunpoint until police arrived.
As a result of the incident, B's mother drove B to the Kaiser Emergency Center where B was treated for an injury to his hand and a concussion. B's mother stayed home from work for three days to monitor B's injuries. His parents also sought out counseling for B to help him process the event. The state charged defendant with five crimes arising from the incident: assault in the second degree, ORS 163.175 ; burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225 ; three counts of unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220(1)(a) ; menacing, ORS 163.190 ; and criminal mischief in the first degree, ORS 164.365. Ultimately, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the first degree and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, and the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. The trial court accepted the pleas, and the state later sought restitution for B's and his parents’ economic damages.
Defendant added that his counsel's behavior was not very professional, and that defendant did not want his current counsel to represent him. Defendant also told the court that his family was in the process of hiring a new lawyer; however, when asked for more details and whether the lawyer was appearing for the restitution hearing, defendant said that he did not know the lawyer's name and that the lawyer was not going to appear. The court informed defendant that it ultimately would be the one to decide whether there would be restitution, not defendant's counsel. After clarifying with defendant that he was "making an oral request to the Court for a different lawyer," the court denied defendant's motion to substitute counsel and proceeded with the restitution hearing.
The state requested $2,224.77 in restitution, which consisted of B's medical costs and counseling services paid for by the Crime Victims’ Compensation Program (CVCP) and his parents’ lost wages. In support of a restitution award, the state presented an affidavit executed by a CVCP representative that explained how CVCP determines whether crime victims are eligible for compensation and described the awarded benefits and amounts that CVCP paid for B's medical costs. Along with the affidavit, the state also presented testimony from B's parents describing the economic damages their family incurred from having to miss work to attend court hearings and care for B's injuries.
Defendant objected to the restitution request. Regarding B's medical costs, defendant argued that there was no evidence from CVCP or a medical provider to explain why the expenses were incurred and whether the expenses were reasonable. As to the amount requested for lost wages, defendant argued that the time B's mother took off work was voluntary and that she had not been subpoenaed to attend the court hearings. The state remonstrated that the medical costs were inherently reasonable given their "modest amount." Further, the state asserted that it was reasonable for B's parents to take off work to attend court hearings on behalf of their minor child. After reviewing the evidence, the trial court ruled that the amount requested for restitution was reasonable and foreseeable, and ordered defendant to pay $2,224.77 in restitution.
On appeal, defendant first renews his argument that the state failed to prove the reasonableness of the medical costs. Defendant asserts that the state did not present a medical bill from B's emergency department visit, and that the evidence that CVCP paid the medical bill was not enough to support a finding of reasonableness. Second, defendant argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $827.53 in restitution for B's medical costs and $689.28 in restitution for B's mother's lost wages when she stayed home with B, because they were based on damages caused by the crimes to which he did not plead guilty. That is, defendant submits that he pleaded guilty only to burglary and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon; however, because he did not plead to assault or otherwise admit to causing B any injury, the trial court erred in awarding restitution. Defendant acknowledges, however, that he did not preserve that argument and requests that we conduct plain-error review. Relying on State v. Howard , 292 Or. App. 517, 424 P.3d 803 (2018), defendant asserts that the trial court plainly erred when it required him to "pay restitution for damages that were not caused by his criminal activity." Third, defendant argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for substitute counsel. Defendant argues that the court summarily denied his motion and did not conduct a fact-specific inquiry after being presented with a legitimate complaint about his counsel.
In response, the state first asserts that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that the amounts paid by CVCP were reasonable. The state, however, acknowledges that in State v. J. M. E. , 299 Or. App. 483, 489, 451 P.3d 1018 (2019), we held that payment by CVCP—without more—does not permit a trial court to find that the amount paid was reasonable for purposes of a restitution award.1 Second, with regard to defendant's plain-error contention, the state asserts that his argument overlooks the fact that "the first-degree burglary charge to which defendant did plead guilty [to] specifically alleged that ‘during [that] offense the defendant caused or attempted to cause physical injury to another person.’ " (Emphasis omitted.) Therefore, because defendant did not "expressly deny that allegation at the change of plea hearing," the state contends that the conduct that injured B was encompassed in defendant's guilty plea to first-degree burglary. Third, the state remonstrates that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for substitute counsel because the court "permissibly concluded that defendant's complaints about existing counsel were not legitimate."
We review restitution orders for errors of law, and we are bound by the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by evidence in the record. State v. McClelland , 278 Or. App. 138, 141, 372 P.3d 614, rev. den. , 360 Or. 423, 383 P.3d 862 (2016).
ORS 137.106(1)(a) provides, in part:
Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), there are three conditions that must be satisfied to order restitution: (1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two. McClelland , 278 Or. App. at 141, 372 P.3d 614. When the state is seeking restitution for medical costs, it must prove that the costs are reasonable. Id. at 143, 372 P.3d 614. Medical costs are reasonable if they are at, or below, the market rate for the respective costs. State v. Workman , 300 Or. App. 622, 623-24, 455 P.3d 566 (2019). A hospital bil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gastiaburu
...Health and the Department of Human Services was insufficient to establish that the expenses were reasonable); State v. Henry , 315 Or. App. 169, 171, 174, 499 P.3d 863 (2021), rev. den. , 369 Or. 211, 503 P.3d 448 (2022) (evidence of payment of medical expenses by Crime Victims' Compensatio......