State v. Halvorson ( 2023 )

No. 323 June 28, 2023 583
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOHN OLAF HALVORSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
16CR27788; A169687
Eric L. Dahlin, Judge.
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed April 19,
2023. Opinion filed March 22, 2023. 324 Or App 656, 527
P3d 817 (2023).
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant
Attorney General, for petition.
John Halvorson pro se, for response.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief
Judge, and Kamins, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion and disposition
modified; portion of judgment awarding restitution to vic-
tims for attorney fees incurred in criminal case reversed
except uncontested $28,200 of G’s award; remanded for
resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
584 State v. Halvorson
Cite as 326 Or App 583 (2023) 585
LAGESEN, C. J.
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of our prior deci-
sion in this matter, State v. Halvorson, 324 Or App 656, 527
P3d 817 (2023) (Halvorson II), which we issued following a
remand from the Supreme Court. Petitioner requests that we
clarify our disposition. At issue on remand in Halvorson II
was whether, in light of State v. Fox, 370 Or 456, 521 P3d
151 (2022), attorney fees incurred by the victim in relation
to criminal proceedings are included in “economic dam-
ages” for the purposes of restitution under ORS 137.106(1).
We concluded that they are not, and “reverse[d] the award
of restitution insofar as it includes victims’ attorney fees
related to the criminal case and remand[ed] for resentenc-
ing.” Halvorson II, 324 Or App at 658.
Petitioner contends that defendant had previously
conceded to $28,200 of victim G’s attorney fees incurred in
connection with the criminal proceedings and did not con-
test that portion of the fees on appeal; defendant does not
dispute that previous concession.1 Although defendant’s con-
cession is noted in our earlier decision, State v. Halvorson,
315 Or App 112, 116, 500 P3d 35 (2021), rev’d and rem’d, 369
Or 211, 503 P3d 444 (2022) (Halvorson I), it was not clearly
acknowledged in our Halvorson II disposition. Accordingly,
we modify Halvorson II to acknowledge defendant’s con-
cession that $28,200 of fees that G incurred in connection
with the criminal proceedings is not included in our partial
reversal of the restitution award. We do so by modifying the
sentence, “Accordingly, we reverse the award of restitution
insofar as it includes victims’ attorney fees related to the
criminal case and remand for resentencing,” 324 Or App at
658, to read, “Accordingly, except for those portions of the vic-
tims’ attorney fees that defendant did not contest on appeal,
we reverse the award of restitution insofar as it includes vic-
tims’ attorney fees related to the criminal case and remand
for resentencing.” We also modify our disposition from,
1
With leave of the court, defendant filed a pro se response to the state’s peti-
tion for reconsideration. He contends that, notwithstanding his prior concession,
we should reverse the $28,200 that he conceded in the trial court was due to G.
Defendant’s concession in the trial court as to that amount, however, invited any
error by the trial court. “[I]nvited error is no basis for reversal.” State v. Harris,
362 Or 55, 67, 404 P3d 926 (2017).
586 State v. Halvorson
“Portion of judgment awarding restitution to victims for
attorney fees incurred in criminal case reversed; remanded
for resentencing; otherwise affirmed,” id., to read, “Portion
of judgment awarding restitution to victims for attorney
fees incurred in criminal case reversed except uncontested
$28,200 of G’s award; remanded for resentencing; otherwise
affirmed.”
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion and dispo-
sition modified; portion of judgment awarding restitution to
victims for attorney fees incurred in criminal case reversed
except uncontested $28,200 of G’s award; remanded for
resentencing; otherwise affirmed.