State v. Becker, 365 P.3d 173

Becker pleaded to a reduced charge (class A misdemeanor attempted aggravated assault) under a plea-in-abeyance for 24 months; restitution was reserved for later determination.
Plea agreement required Becker to pay restitution; the State was ordered to submit documentation within 90 days.
The State submitted an OVC Restitution/Subrogation Notice showing OVC paid the victim $663.01 for two "Medically Necessary Device" items (later described as an eye exam and eyeglasses) and requested reimbursement.
At hearing the State produced a handwritten victim note itemizing $39 (eye exam) and $624 (eyeglasses); Becker objected that the documentation lacked sufficient foundation and nexus to his conduct.
The district court scheduled a second hearing, then ordered restitution of $663.01 plus interest after concluding there was sufficient foundation and nexus.
Becker appealed the restitution order while his plea-in-abeyance period remained in effect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a restitution order entered as a condition of a plea in abeyance	State: No; a plea-in-abeyance is not a final judgment and therefore the appeal is untimely	Becker: Challenge is permissible; prior cases suggest such restitution orders are final and appealable	Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction following State v. Mooers — a restitution order entered as a condition of plea in abeyance is not appealable during the abeyance period
Whether the restitution evidence was sufficient (nexus and foundation)	State: OVC payment and the victim's handwritten itemization plus police report provide sufficient foundation showing damages related to the assault	Becker: Handwritten note and OVC notice are insufficient to establish that damages were caused by Becker's criminal conduct	Court: Did not reach merits on appeal; lower court had ordered restitution but appellate court dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction

Bradbury v. Valencia, 5 P.3d 649 (Utah 2000) (final-judgment rule governs appealability)
State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1993) (horizontal stare decisis binding on panels of the appellate court)
State v. Shoulderblade, 905 P.2d 289 (Utah 1995) (stare decisis supports certainty and predictability in the law)
Meza v. State, 359 P.3d 592 (Utah 2015) (discusses finality and related procedural issues)
Tyler v. Department of Human Servs., 874 P.2d 119 (Utah 1994) (standards for interlocutory review justification)
Tenorio v. State, 156 P.3d 854 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (Court of Appeals bound by its prior decisions)
State v. Gibson, 208 P.3d 543 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (prior discussion of restitution order finality; treated as nonbinding dicta here)