John Paul Garcia v. State of Indiana
47 N.E.3d 1249
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Garcia advertised 200 Morgan dollar coins for $22 each on Craigslist; Bowman paid $3,600 and received 180 coins that were fake.
- Bowman tested the coins and reported the counterfeit to police.
- On Feb. 5, 2013 Garcia tried to flee from officers, crashing a vehicle and being apprehended.
- On Feb. 7, 2013 Garcia pled guilty to forgery (Class C); other charges were dismissed and no habitual offender enhancement.
- The court sentenced Garcia to 66 months to be served concurrently with another case and ordered restitution of $3,600 to Bowman; Bowman did not appear at sentencing.
- Appellate court affirmed the sentence but reversed and remanded the restitution order for a new restitution hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Garcia's sentence inappropriate in light of offense and character? | Garcia argues the 66-month term is inappropriate given his extensive history. | State contends the term fits the offense and Garcia’s history. | Sentence affirmed as appropriate. |
| Was the restitution amount properly supported by the record? | State argues restitution amount is supported by the probable cause affidavit. | Garcia argues the probable cause affidavit alone is insufficient evidence for restitution. | Trial court abused its discretion; remanded for new restitution hearing. |
| Is remand for a new restitution hearing appropriate? | State supports remand to introduce additional evidence. | Garcia opposes additional delay but does not challenge remand itself. | Remand and new restitution hearing ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 986 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (consideration of criminal history in sentence appropriateness)
- J.H. v. State, 950 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (restoration of restitution based on reliable estimate; speculation rejected)
- Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (restitution proof must support reasonable estimate of loss)
- Tate v. State, 835 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (loss evidence admissible for restitution; not limited to guilt-trial rules)
- Iltzsch v. State, 981 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. 2013) (remand when record insufficient to support restitution)
- Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) (relaxed evidentiary rules at sentencing for individualized punishment)
- S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (evidence may support restitution if it reasonably estimates loss)