State v. Jamieson, 414 P.3d 559

Gary Jamieson, a company chief engineer, accessed his CEO's emails without authorization, copied >1,400 emails, and disseminated them to government and media; he pled guilty to a class A misdemeanor computer crime.
The State sought $164,609.77 in restitution on behalf of the employer (Company), largely based on 553 hours the CEO claimed he spent addressing the breach and other employee time.
At the restitution hearing counsel for Company proffered that ~75% of claimed hours were for mitigating damages and ~25% were for "dealing with the criminal process," but no detailed time records were introduced.
Jamieson's counsel asked minimal questions and did not cross-examine the CEO about the 553-hour estimate.
The district court calculated "complete restitution" at $120,378.27 (crediting the 553 hours) and ordered Jamieson to pay $90,000 as court-ordered restitution; Jamieson received jail time with much suspended and probation including restitution as a condition.
On appeal the court considered (1) whether including time spent by Company employees attending the criminal proceedings in restitution was plain error, and (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the CEO's 553-hour claim.

Issue	Jamieson (Plaintiff) Argument	State/Company (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether restitution improperly included employer time spent participating in the criminal proceedings	Inclusion of hours spent attending/hearing participation is not "pecuniary damages" and was barred by State v. Brown	Brown limited to voluntary witnesses; subpoenaed participation should be compensable	Court held Brown applies equally to subpoenaed witnesses; including time spent in the criminal litigation was plain error and must be excluded from restitution calculation
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the CEO's 553-hour estimate	Counsel's failure to question the CEO was objectively deficient and prejudiced Jamieson because the 553-hour figure lacked corroboration and likely affected restitution	State argued counsel could have tactical reasons to avoid challenge (e.g., risk of higher award or appearing non-contrite)	Court held there was no conceivable tactical basis here; counsel was ineffective and prejudice was likely; vacated restitution and remanded for new hearing

State v. Brown, 342 P.3d 239 (Utah 2014) (expenses/time incurred attending criminal litigation are not pecuniary damages recoverable in restitution)
State v. Laycock, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (restitution determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; use best information available when record is incomplete)
State v. Bond, 361 P.3d 104 (Utah 2015) (plain error standard requires showing error, that it was obvious, and that it harmed the appellant)
Brooks v. State, 908 P.2d 856 (Utah 1995) (legal determinations in restitution reviewed for correctness)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)