369 P.3d 313
Idaho Ct. App.2016Background
- Andrew C. Keys pled guilty under a binding I.C.R. 11 plea to one count of domestic battery with traumatic injury; other charges were dismissed.
- District court entered a withheld judgment, costs and fees, three years probation; no restitution was announced at sentencing.
- Approximately five months after sentencing, the state filed an affidavit and the court entered a restitution order for $1,008.
- Keys moved to set aside the restitution order arguing it violated the plea agreement; the district court initially denied the motion.
- On reconsideration the district court vacated the restitution order, giving two alternative reasons: (1) restitution was not part of the plea agreement so the court lacked authority; (2) the state’s six-month delay in seeking restitution was not shown to be necessary under I.C. § 19-5304(6).
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the plea-agreement rationale but upholding vacation of the restitution order based on the unexplained delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could impose restitution despite plea agreement silence | State: court retains authority to order restitution even if plea is silent | Keys: restitution not part of plea, so court lacked authority | Court: plea silence does not bar restitution; trial court had authority (reversed as to this ground) |
| Whether district court properly entered restitution after ~6-month delay | State: delay was reasonable/justified to compute restitution | Keys: delay was not shown to be necessary under statute | Court: no finding the delay was necessary; under I.C. §19-5304(6) court lacked authority to impose restitution after unexplained delay (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jensen, 149 Idaho 758, 241 P.3d 1 (Ct. App. 2010) (delay in seeking restitution requires a judicial finding that delay was necessary)
- State v. Gomez, 153 Idaho 253, 281 P.3d 90 (2012) (a plea agreement silent as to restitution does not preclude a court from imposing restitution)
- State v. Ferguson, 138 Idaho 659, 67 P.3d 1271 (Ct. App. 2002) (statutory limits on timing for restitution and court’s authority)
- State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331 (1989) (appellate review of discretionary sentencing decisions)
- State v. Bybee, 115 Idaho 541, 768 P.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1989) (restitution generally required when crime causes economic loss)