855 N.W.2d 340
Minn. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Andrew Will Alexander was convicted by guilty plea to theft of a motor vehicle; the BMW was stolen and recovered with damage.
- The district court ordered restitution of $21,600 to the dealership and other sanctions, including a $500 fine and probation.
- A restitution hearing found $6,616.05 in repair costs plus a $10,000 discount due to theft-related mileage; the court reduced restitution to $16,616.05.
- The district court also required Alexander to reimburse the public defender’s office in full and to sell his car to satisfy restitution and other costs.
- The court acknowledged Alexander’s assets and income but concluded restitution should be based on victim loss and defendant’s ability to pay under Minn. Stat. §§ 611A.04, .045.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution evidence supports the amount and ability to pay | State: evidence shows loss and damages; restitution proper | Alexander: insufficient proof of causation and lack of ability to pay | Restitution supported by preponderance; court did consider ability to pay |
| Whether the court erred by ordering reimbursement of the public defender without a hearing | State: no error; mandatory reimbursement follows from statute | Alexander: required hearing on PD costs and ability to pay was missing | Abused; remanded for a hearing and findings on PD costs and payability |
| Whether the court could order sale of defendant's car to satisfy restitution | State: court may enforce restitution and collection methods as part of judgment | Alexander: statute does not authorize selling personal property to satisfy restitution | Abused; remanded for resentencing; statute does not authorize sale of personal property to satisfy restitution |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Latimer, 604 N.W.2d 103 (Minn. App. 1999) (victim entitled to restitution; statutory consideration of losses)
- State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. 1999) (court may consider defendant’s ability to pay in restitution)
- State v. Miller, 842 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. App. 2014) (restitution amount requires proof; evidence must support amount)
- State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 2001) (restitution may be paid from prison earnings; ability to pay considered)
- State v. Maidi, 520 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. App. 1994) (consider victim’s losses even if defendant may not pay entire amount)
- Foster v. State, 416 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. App. 1987) (hearing required to determine ability to pay public defender costs)
- Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1988) (credibility determinations are for the trial court)