Anderson v. State
794 N.W.2d 137
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Robert Anderson pled guilty to aiding and abetting identity theft of eight or more victims; restitution was to be determined at sentencing.
- District court sentenced him to 50 months and ordered $1,000 restitution to each of 28 identified direct victims.
- Restitution affidavits were sent to 28 victims; seven responded, five sought restitution, 21 did not respond.
- District court held appellant jointly and severally liable for all 28 direct victims, relying on the identity theft statute’s requirement of $1,000 per direct victim.
- Appellant filed a postconviction motion under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, challenging the restitution award; the court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
- Issue on appeal: whether the district court erred by imposing $1,000 restitution per direct victim under the identity theft statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identity theft statute overrides general restitution proof requirements | Anderson argues the identity theft statute must be read with restitution statutes requiring loss proof. | State contends the identity theft statute mandates $1,000 per direct victim and is more specific. | No error; statute mandates $1,000 per direct victim. |
| Whether a sufficient factual basis supported restitution for all 28 victims | Anderson asserts he did not admit to all 28 victims; 21 affidavits were not filed or challenged. | State notes plea covered eight or more victims; appellant acknowledged responsibility for related victims; direct victims were established by the record. | Sufficient factual basis supported restitution for 28 direct victims. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Latimer, 604 N.W.2d 103 (Minn. App. 1999) (requires factual basis for restitution to each victim)
- State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. 1999) (restitution purpose and compensation of victims)
- State v. Thole, 614 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. App. 2000) (broad district court discretion with factual basis for restitution)
- State v. Carufel, 783 N.W.2d 539 (Minn. 2010) (statutory construction; de novo review)
- State v. Stutelberg, 435 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. App. 1989) (appellate review of district court restitution decisions)