Justine Archer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
2017 WL 510938
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Archer pled guilty to Level 6 felony auto theft for exerting unauthorized control over Robin Boyer’s 2003 Chevrolet; plea agreement left restitution amount blank.
- Court accepted plea and sentenced Archer to 545 days (180 days home detention, remainder suspended to probation); reserved restitution amount and set a hearing if parties couldn’t agree.
- At the restitution hearing, Boyer testified the truck had been spray-painted red and the State introduced a body-shop repair estimate for $5,240.32 plus Kelley Blue Book valuations.
- Archer offered lower vehicle-value estimates (trade-in and private-party values between ~$2,145 and $3,591).
- The trial court ordered restitution of $5,240.32; Archer appealed, arguing the award was unsupported by evidence tying those damages to the theft.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new restitution hearing, finding the record insufficient to attribute the full repair amount to the conduct underlying the auto-theft conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Archer waived appellate review of restitution by plea-waiver | State: plea waiver bars appeal of sentence so long as court sentences within plea terms | Archer: restitution amount was not a fixed term in plea agreement (left blank), so appeal not waived | Waiver did not preclude appeal because restitution amount was not a "sentence within the terms" of the agreement |
| Whether restitution award was supported by evidence | State: repair estimate and KBB support $5,240.32 award; hearing testimony confirmed paint on truck | Archer: pled to theft only; State failed to prove that all repair costs were caused by theft (e.g., spray-painting not established as part of theft) | Reversed: award was an abuse of discretion because State failed to link full repair/ replacement costs to the crime of conviction |
| Proper scope of restitution for a theft conviction | State: may infer related damage during the criminal episode | Archer: restitution must be limited to losses caused "as a result of the crime" pleaded to | Court: restitution must be proven with evidence showing actual loss from the specific crime; cannot speculate or expand beyond conduct of conviction |
| Remedy after insufficient restitution proof | State: invites remand to affirm or supplement evidence | Archer: seeks reversal or new hearing | Court: remanded for a new restitution hearing to determine actual loss caused by the auto theft |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2004) (plea agreements are contract-like and binding when accepted)
- Pannarale v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 1994) (court bound by accepted plea agreement terms)
- Griffin v. State, 756 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (counsel should reduce plea terms to writing to avoid disputes)
- Cherry v. State, 772 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (restitution statutes strictly construed against the State)
- Kays v. State, 963 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 2012) (restitution orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Dull v. State, 44 N.E.3d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (court may not order restitution for acts outside the conviction)
- Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 2008) (restitution vindicates society’s rights and compensates victims)
- Smith v. State, 990 N.E.2d 517 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (actual loss is a factual question requiring evidence)
- Guzman v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (restitution must have a reasonable basis; no speculation)
- Blixt v. State, 872 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (victim testimony can support restitution)
- Hill v. State, 25 N.E.3d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (no restitution for acts not resulting in conviction absent agreement)
- Polen v. State, 578 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (restitution cannot exceed losses tied to crimes of conviction)
- Iltzsch v. State, 961 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. 2013) (remand for supplemental restitution evidence may be appropriate and is not always a second bite)