Submitted July 29, 2014
D122773M. Washington County Circuit Court. Rick Knapp, Judge.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Tookey, Judge.
[266 Or.App. 730] HADLOCK, J.
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of violating a court's stalking protective order (SPO), ORS 163.750, and the trial court entered convictions on that plea. Defendant appeals from a supplemental judgment in which the trial court imposed restitution totaling $2,674.76 for expenses incurred by the victim. On appeal, defendant contends that the state's evidence as to five items of restitution was insufficient to establish " economic damages," as defined in ORS 31.710(2), and therefore provided an inadequate basis for a restitution award under ORS 137.106. We affirm.
We are bound by the trial court's factual findings if they are supported by any evidence in the record, and we review the court's legal conclusions for errors of law. State v. Jordan, 249 Or.App. 93, 96, 274 P.3d 289, rev den, 353 Or. 103, 295 P.3d 50 (2012). If the trial court did not make express findings on a disputed point of fact, we presume that the court implicitly found the facts consistent with the judgment it entered. See State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 75, 854 P.2d 421 (1993) (" If findings of historical fact are not made on all pertinent issues and there is evidence from which such facts could be decided more than one way, we will presume that the facts were decided in a manner consistent with the court's ultimate conclusion." ). Accordingly, we state the facts consistently with the trial court's explicit and implicit factual findings, which the record supports.
The victim obtained a permanent SPO against defendant, with whom she had no prior relationship, in 2010 after defendant " sought her out through her place of work and had waited for her outside of work." The SPO prohibited defendant from having contact with the victim, including by coming into her visual or physical presence or by waiting outside her home, property, work, or school. On July 2, 2012, defendant returned to the victim's place of work, where he approached her and asked in a " deep tone of voice" if she " missed him." The victim reported the incident to police and reported that defendant also had come to her place of work on July 1, 2012.
The victim sought medical attention for " massive panic attacks" that began about a week after defendant's [266 Or.App. 731] July 2012 SPO violations. She saw a physician nine times for treatment of those panic attacks and was prescribed medications as a result. According
to the victim, her doctor explained that her panic attacks were the result of her having reached " a breaking point" at which she " couldn't handle it anymore." The victim missed 18 days of work, several of which were to attend her doctor's appointments. The victim also obtained counseling and group therapy. Her counselor recommended, as part of treatment, that she collect police reports about defendant's conduct from another city.
The victim also missed one day of work to facilitate having her locks changed at home. She testified at the restitution hearing that defendant had " found out [her] home address and [she] needed to change [her] locks," explaining further that she needed to have dead bolts installed. The victim also testified that she had rented a temporary residence " until [she] could get [her] locks changed and make [her] home safe." She explained that she had ...