Mahammad Haroon Rashid v. the State of Texas, 01-19-00826-CR

Rashid pleaded guilty to engaging in organized criminal activity (2003–2013) and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment; the trial court ordered restitution to nine parties, including Progressive Minerals ($750,000), David Hamilton ($47,005), and Bradley Rotter ($50,000).
The State introduced PSI reports (Rashid’s and Hendrix’s), witness testimony from several victims who described unpaid commitment fees and loans, and voluminous bank records showing funds paid into Worldwide/Global Empire accounts.
Progressive Minerals had sued Rashid/Global Empire after paying a $750,000 loan commitment fee that was not returned; its representative had testified in that civil proceeding (evidence summarized in PSI reports).
Bank records in the PSI reflected deposits from Hamilton and a wire from Rotter, but neither Hamilton nor Rotter testified at the punishment hearing and the PSI contained limited detail about their transactions.
Rashid appealed only the restitution awards to Progressive Minerals, Hamilton, and Rotter, arguing insufficiency of evidence (and that the unobjected-to PSI hearsay was inadequate); the court reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The court affirmed restitution to Progressive Minerals but held restitution to Hamilton and Rotter was unsupported and deleted those awards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rashid)	Held
Whether unobjected-to PSI hearsay can support restitution	Unobjected-to PSI material is admissible/weighty under Rule 802 and may sustain restitution	PSI reports are hearsay and, per Cartwright, insufficient to prove restitution amounts	Held: PSI reports (and other evidence) could be relied on when not objected to; trial court permissibly considered PSI material
Whether Progressive Minerals was a "victim" entitled to $750,000 restitution (nexus/proximate cause)	PSI, bank records, and prior civil testimony show Progressive paid $750,000 to Global Empire and did not receive refund — loss was a direct/proximate result of the scheme	Insufficient nexus, timing, and venue proof to link the Progressive loss to the charged conduct	Held: Affirmed — evidence sufficient by preponderance to show Progressive’s loss was a direct/proximate result of the organized-crime conduct
Whether Hamilton and Rotter were "victims" entitled to restitution (nexus/proximate cause)	Bank records and PSI statements show payments to Worldwide and involvement in proposed deals	No witness testimony, no transaction terms, and insufficient proof that funds were paid with an expectation of return — speculative nexus	Held: Reversed/deleted restitution to Hamilton and Rotter for lack of evidence that losses were direct/proximate result of the offense

Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (restitution is a victim’s statutory right; due-process limits on restitution)
Hanna v. State, 426 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (victim must show loss as direct result—both actual and proximate causation)
Cartwright v. State, 605 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (PSI hearsay held insufficient in earlier precedent)
Martin v. State, 874 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (restitution cannot compensate victims of other crimes for which defendant was not convicted)
Fryer v. State, 68 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (rules of evidence generally do not apply to PSI contents)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing matters)
O’Brien v. State, 544 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (each predicate offense is a manner and means of the single offense of engaging in organized criminal activity)