No hearing was held concerning the attorney fees. Petitioner did not file an objection to their imposition. Petitioner, however, objects on appeal and argues that the trial court erroneously entered a judgment for costs under ORS 151.505. The state acknowledges that ORS 151.505 does not apply but contends that petitioner has not preserved this issue and that we should not exercise our discretion to address this unpreserved error. We conclude, moreover, that this is an appropriate case in which to exercise our discretion to address unpreserved plain errors.
Several considerations militate in favor of the exercise of discretion.
First, the state acknowledges the error under ORS 151.505, and the state has fully developed arguments on alternative theories for affirming the trial court. Addressing the error, therefore, neither surprises nor is otherwise unfair to the adverse party. Second, the error is easily corrected without necessity for extensive proceedings on remand. Thus, it does not undercut or offend notions of judicial efficiency. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to consider the assignment of error.