184 A.3d 873
Me.2018Background
- Plante was indicted for aggravated criminal mischief (Class C) but pleaded nolo contendere to criminal mischief (Class D); aggravated count dismissed.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the court found Plante lacked present capacity to pay restitution but had not proved lack of future capacity.
- The court ordered $7,500 restitution payable at $25/month beginning June 2018 (one year after sentencing), and $20 to Victims’ Compensation Fund; Plante received an unconditional discharge.
- Plante moved for correction/reduction of sentence (denied) but did not seek discretionary sentence-review by the Sentence Review Panel.
- Plante directly appealed the restitution order, challenging factual findings and the court’s exercise of discretion regarding his capacity to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the direct appeal may review the sentencing court’s factual findings about capacity to pay restitution | Plante contended the court erred in its factual findings about present/future capacity to pay | State argued Plante’s challenge was to discretionary factual determinations not reviewable on direct appeal | Dismissed: direct appeal does not review factual or discretionary sentencing determinations absent illegality apparent on record | |
| Whether Plante’s failure to seek Sentence Review Panel review bars review of discretionary sentencing issues | Plante sought direct appellate review instead of sentence-review process | State argued sentence-review mechanism is the proper route for discretionary sentencing review when imprisonment ≥ 1 year | Held: sentence-review applies to discretionary sentencing issues when statutory conditions met; Plante was ineligible because no ≥1 year imprisonment | |
| Whether an illegality (constitutional/statutory) is apparent that would permit direct appellate review | Plante raised equal protection and due process claims in reply brief, arguing they require review | State maintained no illegality evident on record and constitutional arguments were undeveloped and unsupported | Held: Plante failed to show an illegality apparent on the record; constitutional claims undeveloped and raised too late | |
| Clerical error in judgment (name middle initial) | Plante noted incorrect middle initial in judgment | State did not contest clerical correction need | Court directed correction of middle initial to “C” | Directed correction of clerical error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davenport, 138 A.3d 1205 (Me. 2016) (direct-appeal limits on review of sentencing factual and discretionary determinations)
- State v. Bennett, 114 A.3d 994 (Me. 2015) (sentence-review eligibility tied to imprisonment term)
- State v. Bradley, 138 A.3d 1210 (Me. 2016) (interpreting restitution statute amendments and burden on offender)
- State v. Johnson, 667 A.2d 110 (Me. 1995) (prior rule requiring express finding of present capacity to pay restitution before statute amendment)
- Lincoln v. Burbank, 147 A.3d 1165 (Me. 2016) (rejecting undeveloped legal arguments raised without supporting authority)
- State v. Lowe, 124 A.3d 156 (Me. 2015) (procedural defaults and limits on appellate consideration of new arguments)