State of Maine v. David Bradley, 138 A.3d 1210

David Bradley, a former licensed psychologist, pled guilty to one count of Class B theft by deception for submitting hundreds of fraudulent MaineCare claims totaling at least $40,217.56.
Bradley had lost his psychology license and a B&B; his fraudulent claims were submitted during 2010–2011, while he spent time in Florida and served unrelated jail time.
At sentencing Bradley reported monthly income of $890 and monthly expenses of $885 and asked restitution be limited to $1,563; the State sought $40,217.56.
The sentencing court found Bradley had diminished but not total inability to pay, noted no overwhelming health problems, and observed some future employability despite felony convictions.
The court sentenced Bradley to four years with all but nine months suspended, three years’ probation, and ordered $20,000 restitution (payment schedule to be set by DOC).
Bradley appealed both as a direct appeal (due-process challenge) and via leave to appeal his sentence (discretionary review of restitution propriety).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether record compels finding Bradley incapable of paying $20,000 restitution	Bradley: evidence of minimal income and expenses shows incapacity to pay; thus restitution order improper as a matter of law	State: court properly considered earning capacity; felony status alone does not establish incapacity	Court: No error — record does not compel finding of excessive financial hardship; sentencing court permissibly found reduced but not total inability to pay
Whether $20,000 restitution order was arbitrary and violated due process	Bradley: ordering $20,000 was arbitrary given his limited means and therefore unconstitutional	State: court considered statutory factors, reduced State’s request, and left payment scheduling to DOC to fit circumstances	Court: No due-process violation — decision was reasoned, considered statutory factors, and was not arbitrary

State v. Berube, 698 A.2d 509 (Me. 1997) (court not required to make express finding of ability to pay; restitution authorized absent evidence of excessive hardship)
State v. Ricker, 770 A.2d 1021 (Me. 2001) (challenges based on illegality appearing on the face of the record may be raised on direct appeal)
State v. Nelson, 994 A.2d 808 (Me. 2010) (restitution order upheld where defendant able-bodied with transferable skills and no disability)
State v. Peck, 93 A.3d 256 (Me. 2014) (court may recognize financial limitations and substantially reduce State’s requested restitution)
State v. Johnson, 667 A.2d 110 (Me. 1995) (vacating restitution where record showed all income required for basic necessities and court imposed symbolic, uncollectible restitution)
State v. Bennett, 114 A.3d 994 (Me. 2015) (de novo review of constitutionality of a sentence)
State v. Pease, 940 A.2d 189 (Me. 2007) (presence of transferable skills and ability to work supports restitution findings)