State v. Lawrence ( 2024 )

No. 287 May 1, 2024 419
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RICARDO LEWIS LAWRENCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
20CR37524, 21CR18877; A179227 (Control), A179228
Erik M. Bucher, Judge.
Submitted January 22, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Powers, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and
Armstrong, Senior Judge.
POWERS, J.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
420 State v. Lawrence
POWERS, J.
In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant
challenges the trial court’s imposition of restitution in two
separate cases. Defendant, who was a mechanic that sold
vehicles that the victims paid him to repair, pleaded guilty to
three counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135.
On appeal, he advances three assignments of error. In his
first two assignments of error, defendant argues that the
trial court erred in imposing restitution because there was
insufficient evidence to support the court’s determination.
In his third assignment of error, defendant contends that
the trial court erred by imposing in both cases special con-
ditions of probation relating to defendant’s finances because,
among other arguments, it did not do so in open court. As
explained below, we remand for resentencing on that issue
and otherwise affirm.
In reviewing a challenge to the imposition of res-
titution, we view the facts and reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the state and determine, when
so viewed, whether a rational factfinder could have found
the facts necessary to support the award. State v. Aguirre-
Rodriguez, 367 Or 614, 620, 482 P3d 62 (2021). Because the
parties are familiar with the underlying procedural and fac-
tual background, we do not provide a detailed recitation for
this nonprecedential memorandum opinion.
We concluded, after reviewing the parties’ argu-
ments and the record, that there is sufficient evidence to
support the court’s restitution determinations of $4,000 and
$4,995. The state presented evidence surrounding the value
of both vehicles, including: The Kelley Blue Book value for
each vehicle; a variable commission that defendant could
have earned depending on the price that the Pathfinder sold
for; and the price the victim paid for the Mustang about a
month before taking it to defendant to be repaired. Although
the Blue Book values were based on running vehicles, rather
than a vehicle that “shut[s] off intermittently” or a vehicle
that did not have a working transmission, there was suffi-
cient other evidence for the trial court to consider along with
those Blue Book values to determine the reasonable amount
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 419 (2024) 421
of economic damages each victim sustained. Accordingly, we
reject defendant’s first two assignments of error.
Turning to the third assignment of error, the state
concedes that the trial court erred by not pronouncing the
special conditions in defendant’s presence, and we accept
that concession. See State v. Jacobs, 200 Or App 665, 671-74,
117 P3d 290 (2005) (explaining that a defendant has a right
to be present when the court pronounces the sentence). We
further conclude that the court’s error is not harmless. Id.Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.