State v. Holt, 113990

Background

William Holt II was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated burglary (related prior appeal) and later pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree murder arising from the same transaction; consolidated resentencing imposed consecutive hard-25 life and 165-month sentences.
At resentencing the district court ordered $12,406.58 in restitution but did not require immediate payments while Holt is incarcerated; the order contemplated restitution could be enforced as a condition of parole or postrelease supervision.
Holt (through counsel) argued restitution was "unworkable" because he had no assets, reported $9/month prison wages, and likely would serve a very long time; he presented no sworn evidence of inability to pay upon release.
The district court declined to find compelling circumstances rendering a restitution plan unworkable and entered the restitution amount for potential future collection.
On appeal Holt argued the court abused its discretion; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding Holt failed to meet his burden to show future inability to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Holt)	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering restitution for an incarcerated defendant serving an off-grid life term	Statute requires restitution unless compelling circumstances make a plan unworkable; restitution may be specified now and collected if later ordered as condition of parole	Restitution is unworkable because Holt has no assets, makes $9/month in prison, and likely will never be able to pay	No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to present evidence of inability to pay upon release so restitution proper
What burden the defendant must meet to show a restitution plan is "unworkable"	Defendant must come forward with evidence of compelling circumstances or inability to pay when restitution would be due	Holt asserts present poverty and prison wages demonstrate unworkability without evidence about postrelease ability	Defendant bears burden to present evidence of future inability to pay; minimal current-income evidence insufficient
Whether imprisonment alone renders restitution unworkable	Imprisonment does not automatically make restitution unworkable where payments are not immediately required	Imprisonment effectively prevents payment and makes the plan impracticable	Court reaffirmed imprisonment alone insufficient; focus is on ability to pay upon release
Standard of review for restitution-plan workability	Abuse of discretion review of district court's determination	N/A (argument concerns facts and sufficiency of evidence)	Determination reviewed for abuse of discretion; affirmed absent no reasonable person could agree with court

Key Cases Cited

State v. Holt, 300 Kan. 985, 336 P.3d 312 (Kan. 2014) (prior appeal affirming convictions and vacating hard-50 sentence)
State v. Alcala, 301 Kan. 832, 348 P.3d 570 (Kan. 2015) (defendant must present evidence of inability to pay; imprisonment alone insufficient)
State v. Shank, 304 Kan. 89, 369 P.3d 322 (Kan. 2016) (standards of review for restitution issues and need to prove inability to pay upon release)
State v. Goeller, 276 Kan. 578, 77 P.3d 1272 (Kan. 2003) (defendant's burden to come forward with evidence of inability to pay)
State v. Alderson, 299 Kan. 148, 322 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2014) (court must unambiguously state intent to collect restitution during incarceration)
State v. Hunziker, 274 Kan. 655, 56 P.3d 202 (Kan. 2002) (primary purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole)