Commonwealth v. Slamin, 102 N.E.3d 429

Defendant pleaded guilty (May 2016) to breaking and entering, motor vehicle larceny, and related charges for thefts of Zipcar vehicles; sentence: 4–6 years state prison plus consecutive 4-year probation.
Judge held a Henry evidentiary hearing to determine ability to pay restitution and found defendant had no assets, limited education, sporadic work history, and had been incarcerated since arrest.
Defendant earned modest cash for odd jobs pre‑incarceration, received training in prison (OSHA, culinary certificate), and had an offer of help finding work post‑release but no firm job prospects.
Judge found defendant unlikely to pay immediately on release but "employable," and ordered $4,800 restitution payable at $100/month over 48 months of probation; court fees (including supervision fees) were waived. Zipcar’s actual loss was found to be $31,413 (unchallenged).
Commonwealth did not contest the loss amount; defendant’s ability to pay and the structure of the restitution order were contested on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge properly set payment schedule given defendant's inability to pay immediately	Order requires total $4,800 over probation and is permissible	Order improperly requires $100/month immediately despite finding defendant could not pay upon release	Vacated and remanded: judge must set a payment schedule that accounts for inability to make immediate payments and not delegate schedule to probation department
Whether judge made required Henry finding that defendant is earning less than he could through reasonable effort before attributing future income	Implicit in the order; future earning capacity can be inferred	Judge failed to make the specific Henry finding required to attribute future income	Vacated and remanded: judge must make the explicit Henry finding and articulate grounds for attributing income based on employment history and prospects
Whether restitution may be ordered if it causes substantial financial hardship	Restitution over time is permissible if not causing substantial hardship	Restitution cannot be ordered without considering defendant's financial obligations and basic needs	On remand judge may order restitution only after determining it will not cause substantial financial hardship and considering resources/obligations; defendant bears burden to prove inability to pay

Commonwealth v. Henry, 475 Mass. 117 (Mass. 2016) (requires court to consider defendant's ability to pay when fixing restitution, make specific findings about potential income, and not delegate payment-schedule duties to probation)
Commonwealth v. Nawn, 394 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1985) (courts must consider employment history and financial prospects when attributing potential income)