Background
Frederick Owen Jefferson pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal mischief under ORS 164.365. The Multnomah County Circuit Court entered a judgment imposing $6,528.85 in restitution.
In a consolidated appeal involving three judgments, Jefferson challenged only the judgment in Case No. 23CR47511. He argued that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him that he had a right to a jury trial on restitution, with the result that he did not validly waive that asserted right.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. Relying on its recent decisions in State v. Myers and State v. Rich, the court held that neither Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution nor the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a right to a jury trial to contest a criminal restitution award.
Because Jefferson had no jury-trial right as to restitution, the trial court did not err by failing to advise him of such a right or obtain a waiver. The court concluded that the claimed error was “not error much less plain error.”
Key Takeaways
- A criminal defendant has no right under the cited Oregon or federal constitutional provisions to have a jury determine a contested restitution award.
- A trial court therefore need not advise a defendant of a jury-trial right regarding restitution or secure a waiver of that asserted right.
- Because there was no legal error, Jefferson could not obtain relief under plain-error review.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Oregon Court of Appeals’ recent restitution precedents to reject another jury-right challenge. It confirms that, under those decisions, restitution disputes are not subject to jury determination under Article I, section 17, or the Sixth Amendment.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.