State v. Mooers, 362 P.3d 282

In Nov. 2012 Mooers was charged after a home burglary/theft; he agreed to a plea in abeyance: admit to theft, attend class, and pay costs and restitution.
The court signed the plea form but did not enter judgment; the plea was held in abeyance for 18 months and restitution was ordered jointly and severally with co-defendants.
The State later sought a restitution figure; the court ordered $5,760.50, which included $1,100 to install security bars on the broken basement window.
Mooers objected only to the security-bar cost and requested a hearing; after an evidentiary hearing the court again ordered full restitution.
Mooers appealed the restitution order, arguing the security-bar cost is not "pecuniary damages" under the Crime Victims Restitution Act and that the restitution order is independently appealable despite the plea remaining in abeyance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a restitution order imposed as a condition of a plea in abeyance is a final, appealable order	State: restitution order enforceable as a civil judgment but did not argue it created immediate appellate jurisdiction	Mooers: restitution order is independently appealable under the Crime Victims Restitution Act; he may appeal amount before conviction/sentence	Court: plea in abeyance is not a final judgment/conviction; restitution imposed as a condition is not an exception to the final-judgment rule; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the security-bar installation cost constitutes "pecuniary damages" under the Crime Victims Restitution Act	State: such remedial costs fall within restitutionable pecuniary damages (court accepted)	Mooers: installation cost is not pecuniary damages and he should not be liable	Court: did not reach merits because appeal was jurisdictionally defective (merits not decided)

State v. Fedder, 262 P.2d 753 (Utah 1953) (sentence ordinarily synonymous with judgment for appealability)
State v. Gerrard, 584 P.2d 885 (Utah 1978) (sentence constitutes final judgment from which appeal lies)
State v. Moss, 921 P.2d 1021 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (plea in abeyance is not a final adjudication)
State v. Millward, 332 P.3d 400 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (plea in abeyance is not a final judgment; relief may be sought by other means)
State v. Gibson, 208 P.3d 543 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (restitution order discussion was dictum; appellate review options exist)
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (U.S. 1821) (dicta may be persuasive but not controlling)
State v. Laycock, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (purpose of restitution: compensate victims and rehabilitate/deter defendants)