Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. State
444 S.W.3d 21
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Gutierrez-Rodriguez was charged with two Class B misdemeanors for theft of an iPod and a GPS in two separate burglaries.
- At sentencing, the trial court ordered restitution totaling $1,215 for unrecovered items not charged in the information.
- The unrecovered items belonged to the same victims and were stolen in the same transaction as the charged items.
- Restitution was imposed as a condition of probation after the court announced punishment terms.
- The Court of Appeals deleted the restitution requirement after finding no factual basis, prompting discretionary review.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reverses, holding the claim forfeited by not objecting at trial and that the restitution contract was accepted by Gutierrez-Rodriguez without objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to object at trial forfeits restitution challenge | Gutierrez-Rodriguez | State | Yes; forfeited under Speth. |
| Proper remedy if restitution order is unauthorized or improper | Gutierrez-Rodriguez | State | Not reached; remedy unnecessary due to forfeiture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (probation contracts require objection to avoid forfeiture of conditions)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (restitution as probation condition; different from non-probation context)
- Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (forfeiture issues regarding restitution in probation context)
- Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. State, 405 S.W.3d 936 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2013) (evidence and scope of restitution; discussed here for context)
- Gutierrez v. State, 380 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (restitution and probation context considerations)