Burt, Lemuel Carl, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 704

Jury convicted appellant of misapplication of fiduciary property and sentenced 14 years’ incarceration and a $10,000 fine; restitution order for $591,785 issued in the judgment.
Trial judge verbally urged expediency on restitution and stated readiness to proceed with a hearing only if the amount could not be agreed on.
Oral pronouncement of sentence occurred in open court; the judge remarked that the restitution matter should be resolved soon.
The docket and judgment reflect a restitution order following the jury verdict, with the written amount based on a table of twenty named victims and alleged losses.
Appellant filed a motion for new trial on the same day; the motion was denied; court of appeals affirmed without addressing the restitution merits due to preservation issues.
Trial court directed the state to prepare a restitution order with potential later evidentiary hearing if an agreed figure could not be reached; no evidentiary hearing was held.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the restitution issue preserved for appeal?	Appellant argues preservation was impossible due to the written judgment issuing after opportunities to object.	State and court of appeals held preservation failed because objections should have been raised at sentencing or in motions for new trial.	Appellant preserved for review; remand for merits.
Did the restitution order include losses from victims not named in the indictment?	The order improperly included losses from unnamed victims.	No meaningful objection at trial; the order followed the State’s exhibit and names.	Remand to address merits of the restitution amount.
Does the written restitution order reflect an illegal sentence due to lack of proper reliance on an oral pronouncement?	Oral pronouncement controls; mismatch with written judgment is error.	Restitution process contemplated in trial; order valid notwithstanding timing concerns.	Remand to consider merits of restitution in light of the oral pronouncement.

Bailey v. State, 160 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (preservation of error and waiver principles in restitution contexts)
Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (opportunity to object and preservation when no hearing)
Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (motion for new trial as preservation method when no objection possible)
Ex Parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (illegality or improper scope of restitution in certain contexts)
Ex Parte Lewis, 892 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (restoration of rights and related restitution procedures)
Ex Parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (restitution and preservation interplay)