State v. Christopher T. Weaver, 158 Idaho 167

Weaver was arrested; an inventory search found a morphine sulfate pill in his vehicle. He pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance.
The district court sentenced Weaver and ordered restitution under I.C. § 37-2732(k), including $300 to the county prosecutor’s office (4 hours at $75/hr) for prosecution-related time.
The restitution order did not set payment terms; the clerk later issued notice the debt would be referred to collections if unpaid.
Weaver objected, disputing the prosecutor’s four-hour time accounting and requesting more time to pay. The prosecutor testified and certified the time estimate; the court found the $300 reasonable.
The district court treated Weaver’s payment-extension request as an I.C.R. 35 motion, denied it, and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to control the clerk’s statutory collection duties. Weaver appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether $300 restitution to prosecutor was supported by substantial evidence	State: certified time accounting (4 hours at $75) was sufficient evidence	Weaver: accounting was speculative; specific entries (e.g., first appearance) overstated	Court: upheld award — certified estimate constituted substantial evidence under preponderance standard
Whether district court had discretion to extend payment time after order entered	Weaver: court retains discretion to set or modify payment timing even if not on probation	State: execution/collection after entry is governed by statutes and clerk/victim, not trial court	Court: district court cannot dictate post-entry collection timing; denial affirmed

State v. Gomez, 153 Idaho 253 (2012) (§ 37-2732(k) restitution governed by general restitution principles)
State v. Mosqueda, 150 Idaho 830 (2011) (discretion under § 37-2732(k) limited and guided by § 19-5304)
State v. Straub, 153 Idaho 882 (2013) (restitution procedure and timing constrained by statute)
State v. Corbus, 150 Idaho 599 (2011) (amount of restitution is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence)
State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598 (1989) (appellate review framework for discretionary rulings)
State v. Ferguson, 138 Idaho 659 (2002) (I.C.R. 35 not proper vehicle to challenge restitution order)
State v. Cottrell, 152 Idaho 387 (2012) (victim may enforce restitution like civil judgment; collection mechanisms are independent of criminal court)
State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165 (2006) (wider discretion to set monetary terms as probation conditions under § 19-2601)