STATE v. OTHMAN (2021)

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.

PER CURIAM