State v. Travers

                                   487

Submitted June 4; supplemental judgment reversed, remanded for resentencing,
                    otherwise affirmed September 9, 2021


                     STATE OF OREGON,
                      Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                v.
                  RONALD CODY TRAVERS,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                 Columbia County Circuit Court
                     18CR69593; A172804
                                

   Cathleen B. Callahan, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Stacy M. Du Clos, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
488                                                          State v. Travers

           PER CURIAM
         After a motor vehicle crash, defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault and, as part of his sentence,
was ordered to pay $13,621.62 in restitution to a victim’s
insurance company. Defendant appeals the supplemental
judgment, assigning error to the restitution order as it pertains both to medical expenses ($5,937.18) and to vehicle
replacement costs ($7,684.44). We review restitution orders
for errors of law and are bound by any factual findings supported by evidence in the record. State v. McClelland, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2016).
         Regarding medical expenses, the state concedes
that the trial court erred in imposing restitution on the
existing record, because it does not establish the reasonableness of those expenses. See id. at 143 (recognizing that the
state must establish that a victim’s medical expenses are
“reasonable charges necessarily incurred” to support a restitution award). We agree with the parties’ assessment of the
record, accept the state’s concession on medical expenses,
and reverse the supplemental judgment as to that portion of
the restitution order.
         Regarding vehicle replacement costs, the situation
is more complicated, because the state purports to concede
an error that defendant does not claim in his opening brief.1
Defendant’s legal challenge to the order of restitution for
the victim’s vehicle replacement costs is that the state failed
to prove that those costs were caused by defendant’s criminal activity. See State v. Andrews, 

, 

 (2020) (“ORS 137.106 requires an award of restitution
when three prerequisites are met: (1) criminal activities;
(2) economic damages; and (3) a causal relationship between
the two.”). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that
the state’s evidence, albeit thin, was legally sufficient to

    1
      The state “concedes” that the record contains insufficient evidence of the
“reasonable market value” of the victim’s totaled vehicle, see State v. De Verteuil,

, 

 (2020) (looking to the “reasonable market value”
of the victim’s destroyed property in awarding restitution), but defendant does
not make that argument on appeal. We therefore do not accept the state’s concession. See Cervantes v. Dept. of Human Services, 

, 

 (2019) (recognizing that we are “not bound to accept” a concession and “must
decide” whether to accept it).
Cite as 

 (2021)                           489

establish causation. We therefore affirm the portion of the
restitution order pertaining to vehicle replacement costs.
        We reject defendant’s other two assignments of
error, which relate to evidentiary rulings as to a particular
witness’s testimony, without written discussion.
         Accordingly, we reverse the supplemental judgment
and remand for resentencing. Defendant requests a straight
reversal, but we agree with the state that reversal and
remand is the correct disposition. Cf. State v. Boza, 

, 

 (2020); State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 

, 

 (2019); State
v. Tippetts, 

, 

 (2010).
        Supplemental judgment reversed; remanded for
resentencing; otherwise affirmed.