2024 ND 167
N.D.2024Background
- Ladarius Miller pleaded guilty to theft of property by deception for using falsified paystubs to purchase a vehicle in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement, Miller agreed to specific penalties and $800 in restitution, with restitution left open for 60 days; county prosecution costs were not contemplated.
- Miller was apprehended in Oregon and extradited to North Dakota; Grand Forks County later sought restitution of $2,435.91 for extradition-related expenses (officer salary, travel, lodging, meals).
- The district court granted the State’s motion and imposed these extradition costs as restitution.
- Miller appealed, arguing extradition costs are not directly related to his convicted offense and that the costs violate his plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extradition costs are recoverable as restitution | Extradition was necessary due to Miller's criminal conduct; restitution is due | Extradition costs are not directly caused by the theft offense | Not recoverable; costs are not directly related to theft |
| Whether Miller waived challenge by not requesting hearing | Miller did not timely request a hearing, waiving challenge | State failed to properly notify; hearing requested by State | No waiver; Miller could challenge given State's actions |
| Whether costs of prosecution can be imposed post-plea | Court can impose reasonable prosecution costs under statute | Plea agreement did not include these costs; cannot be imposed afterwards | No; adding cost of prosecution post-plea violates binding agreement |
| Whether Grand Forks County is a crime victim | County suffered loss due to crime, should be restituted | County is not a statutory victim under these circumstances | Not reached, resolved on direct connection grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bruce, 907 N.W.2d 773 (N.D. 2018) (Affirms abuse-of-discretion review for restitution orders)
- State v. Carson, 900 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 2017) (Restitution requires direct, immediate causal connection to the offense)
- State v. Gaddie, 971 N.W.2d 811 (N.D. 2022) (Statutory ambiguity in criminal law construed in favor of defendant)
- State v. Harstad, 945 N.W.2d 265 (N.D. 2020) (Restitution not permitted for damages not directly tied to the convicted offense)
- State v. Marinucci, 321 N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 1982) (Court may otherwise impose prosecution costs as sentencing alternative)