Background

• Appellant Alexis Marie Ireland was charged by information with forgery by passing a $7,475.41 check, the victim being Central National Bank.
• Ireland pled guilty and received deferred adjudication with an order to pay restitution of $1,922.57 at $35 per month.
• The written judgment later included restitution of $1,922.57.
• The State later disclosed that Central National Bank did not suffer a loss from the forged check and was reimbursed by another party for the amount in question.
• The record shows two forgeries on separate days, implying two offenses, with restitution improperly tied to an uncharged offense.
• Restitution ordered as part of the sentence is challenged as it may be void because it targets the victim of an uncharged offense and lacks proper factual basis.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Hanna v. State, 426 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (restitution may be ordered only to victims of the charged offense)
• Campbell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (limits on restitution to victims of the offense and adjudicated losses)
• Martin v. State, 874 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (restitution cannot compensate all victims of a general scheme when only one offense is charged)
• Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. State, 44 S.W.3d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (community supervision may extend terms but not when sentencing; restitution for uncharged items under conditions may be improper in this context)
• Jordan v. State, 979 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (unauthorized punishments can be challenged on appeal even without trial objection)