From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Othman

Court of Appeals of Oregon
Oct 6, 2021
315 Or. App. 71 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

A172981

10-06-2021

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Omar Said OTHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

PER CURIAM Defendant, who pleaded guilty to offensive littering, ORS 164.805, appeals a supplemental judgment imposing restitution in the amount of $1,047.56. At sentencing, the trial court told defendant when the restitution hearing would be held but did not tell him that a failure to appear at the hearing would result in a waiver of his right to object to restitution. The written judgment, however, did provide that a failure to appear at the restitution hearing would result in defendant waiving his right to object to the imposition and amount of restitution. Defendant failed to appear at sentencing, and the trial court imposed restitution in his absence. On appeal, defendant argues that the court plainly erred in imposing restitution in his absence, and also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the restitution award. The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in imposing restitution in defendant's absence. We agree and accept that concession, and therefore do not reach defendant's other argument. A valid waiver of defendant's right to be present cannot be presumed in this circumstance. See State v. Sidener , 308 Or. App. 155, 478 P.3d 605 (2020) (correcting similar error as plain error). For the reasons expressed in Sidener , we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Othman

Court of Appeals of Oregon
Oct 6, 2021
315 Or. App. 71 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

State v. Othman

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OMAR SAID OTHMAN…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon

Date published: Oct 6, 2021

Citations

315 Or. App. 71 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
496 P.3d 1155