Brittany Michelle Barrett v. State
12-15-00147-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 22, 2015Background
- Brittany Barrett pled guilty and received ten years deferred-adjudication community supervision on related aggravated-assault indictments; the State later moved to adjudicate and the court found her guilty and sentenced her to 15 years.
- At disposition the judgments in two appeals included specific restitution orders: one judgment allocated $1,232.71 (and referenced other sums) and another judgment ordered $68,662.15 to Trinity/Mother Francis Hospital.
- The clerk’s record and presentence-investigation material, however, only show $818.69 in documented restitution to the Texas Crime Victim Compensation Fund.
- Some restitution items in the judgments (payments to EMS and certain hospital entities) lack evidentiary support in the record and may be outside the class of entitled victims.
- Appellant asks the appellate court to modify one judgment to $818.69 payable to the Crime Victims Fund, to eliminate restitution in the other, or to vacate and remand for proper proof of restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the restitution amounts in the final judgments are supported by legally sufficient evidence | Barrett: restitution in each judgment is unsupported by the record; only $818.69 to the Crime Victims Compensation Fund is shown; some payees (EMS/hospital) lack proof or entitlement | State: (not detailed in brief) trial court was authorized to order restitution upon adjudication | The trial court erred to the extent restitution amounts in the judgments exceed the record proof; appellate remedy should be modification to reflect supported restitution or remand for proper proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 968 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deferred adjudication: no sentence until adjudication)
- Cabla v. State, 6 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. Crim. App.) (limits on restitution: must be just, supported, and for victims of the offense)
- Martin v. State, 874 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. Crim. App.) (restitution must be to victim(s) or certain statutory funds)
- Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. Crim. App.) (remand sometimes appropriate when restitution evidence is insufficient)
- Barton v. State, 21 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. Crim. App.) (remand vs. modification principles)
- Beedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court authorized to order restitution at sentencing but amount must be supported)