Logan M. Dull v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 662
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Logan M. Dull was indicted for one count of Class D felony theft alleging thefts of grain "on or about various times in the summer or fall of 2013." He pled guilty to that single count and agreed in the plea to pay restitution as ordered.
- At plea hearing Dull admitted taking grain from the victim on August 20, 2013, and acknowledged two additional thefts (three occasions total) but was told he would be convicted of only one count regardless of admissions.
- Probation obtained grain-sale records from Andersons showing 70 checks issued to Dull between May–Dec 2012 and Jan–Sept 2013 totaling $145,633.40; the probation department recommended that amount as restitution.
- At a restitution hearing Dull disputed ability to pay and contested ordering restitution for transactions predating the indictment period; he did not object to the State’s exhibits showing Andersons’ payments but maintained he only stole a few truckloads and that some grain came from a third party.
- The trial court found Dull received Andersons checks only for grain stolen from the victim, found him able to pay, and ordered restitution of $145,633.40 payable at $500/month.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by ordering restitution for uncharged acts (pre-summer 2013) that Dull did not plead guilty to or agree to pay; remanded to enter restitution limited to $27,778.18 (amount the parties agreed related to the indictment period).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dull's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by ordering $145,633.40 restitution | Restitution proper because Dull agreed in plea to pay restitution and admitted selling stolen grain; his admissions at sentencing covered additional thefts | Restitution may only cover losses tied to convictions or amounts the defendant agreed to; here much of the amount was for uncharged acts outside indictment dates | Reversed: court may not order restitution for uncharged acts to which defendant did not plead guilty or agree to pay; limit restitution to amounts within indictment period |
| Whether trial court adequately inquired into Dull’s ability to pay | Trial court properly reviewed PSI and heard testimony, so inquiry sufficient | Trial court failed to adequately consider Dull’s financial inability to pay | Held inquiry was sufficient; trial court’s credibility finding that Dull could pay was not disturbed |
| Whether evidence supported actual loss amount ordered | Andersons’ records established proceeds Dull received from selling grain; adequate proof of loss | Amount included pre-indictment transactions and thus exceeded what may be ordered for this conviction | Not addressed in full because restitution order reversed on other grounds; however records were admissible but restitution limited to conviction period |
| Whether amount exceeded statutory limit for Class D felony theft | State argued plea language and admissions justified amount | Dull argued amount exceeded Class D limits and indictment timeframe | Court did not reach statutory-limit claim because restitution order vacated for ordering uncharged-acts restitution; remanded to enter agreed amount within indictment timeframe |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. State, 848 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court authority to order restitution)
- Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 2008) (purpose of restitution and requirement to inquire into ability to pay when restitution is probation condition)
- Kays v. State, 963 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review for restitution orders)
- Hill v. State, 25 N.E.3d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (restitution cannot be ordered for acts that did not result in conviction absent agreement)
- Kinkead v. State, 791 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (general plea-term agreement to pay restitution does not permit ordering restitution beyond the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty)