State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow, A16-667

John Zastrow pleaded guilty (per plea agreement) to identity theft involving eight+ victims and multiple counts of failing to file personal and corporate tax returns; sentencing occurred in April 2015 with restitution reserved for 60 days by agreement of the parties.
Parties submitted letter briefs within 60 days; the state provided a proposed restitution order that listed alternative amounts for three victims (either actual claimed loss or $1,000 statutory minimum) and expected the court to mark the chosen amount for each.
On January 26, 2016 the district court issued a restitution order for $60,360.64 but failed to select between the alternatives for the three victims, effectively including both alternatives in the total.
The state asked the district court to specify the amounts; appellant filed a timely appeal on April 22, then the district court issued an amended restitution order on April 26 selecting amounts.
Appellant argued the court abused its discretion by (1) failing to offset restitution by debts victims allegedly owed him, and (2) failing to select between alternative award amounts; the Court of Appeals addressed both issues.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be offset by alleged debts victims owe to appellant	Restitution should be offset by victims’ debts to eliminate or reduce awards	Offsets are improper; statute controls restitution factors and civil remedies are appropriate for debts	Court held offsets are not a proper factor; restitution cannot be reduced by alleged debts and district court did not abuse discretion in declining to offset
Whether district court provided adequate findings on restitution	District court failed to state reasons addressing offset argument	District court referenced statutory factors and record supplied factual basis	Court held record provided sufficient factual basis despite minimal on-the-record explanation
Whether district court erred by failing to select between alternative restitution amounts for three victims	Court’s omission resulted in excess restitution by including both alternatives	State argued amended order cured the problem	Court held original January 26 order erred because the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend after appeal; reversed and remanded for proper amended order
Whether district court’s post-appeal amended restitution order was effective	Appellant implied amendment was improper since filed after appeal	State contended amendment fixed clerical omission	Court held district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the amended order after appeal, so reversal/remand required to allow proper amendment

State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. 1999) (standard of review: restitution award reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Palubicki, 727 N.W.2d 662 (Minn. 2007) (purpose of restitution is to restore victims to pre-offense financial position)
State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 1999) (pending civil suits do not justify refusing restitution)
State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011) (district court must have factual basis for restitution award; record can supply it)
State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 1984) (record may provide factual basis for restitution)
Anderson v. State, 794 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. App. 2011) (record-based support for restitution findings)
State v. Doppler, 590 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 1999) (parties may waive statutory timing requirements by agreement)