State v. Mooers and Becker
2017 UT 36
| Utah | 2017Background
- Two consolidated appeals (Mooers and Becker) challenged district-court restitution orders entered after pleas in abeyance.
- Mooers pleaded to felony theft with restitution as a condition; district court included $1,100 for window bars; Mooers appealed.
- Becker pleaded to attempted aggravated assault with restitution requested for medical expenses; district court ordered $663.01; Becker appealed.
- Utah Court of Appeals dismissed both appeals for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the view that restitution tied to a plea in abeyance is not a final, appealable order.
- Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether an order of complete restitution entered as part of a plea in abeyance is a final, appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order of complete restitution entered in a plea in abeyance is a final, appealable order | Restitution tied to a plea in abeyance is not final because conviction/sentence hasn't occurred; appeal time should follow sentence | Complete restitution is a distinct civil judgment and should be appealable regardless of conviction/sentence timing | An order of complete restitution is a final civil judgment and is separately appealable as of right |
| Whether court-ordered restitution (distinct from complete restitution) is separately appealable when part of a plea in abeyance | Same as above—should not be separately appealable until sentence | Court-ordered restitution differs from complete restitution and may be subject to separate review only insofar as it is reduced to complete restitution | Court-ordered restitution in a plea in abeyance is not a final appealable order because it is a condition of the plea, not a sentence |
| Whether district courts must distinguish between complete and court-ordered restitution | (State implicitly) single restitution determination suffices | Statute requires two separate determinations; merging is error | Courts must make separate findings for complete and court-ordered restitution; they are distinct under the Restitution Act |
| Jurisdictional effect when restitution is entered after sentencing or within a year of sentencing | Appeal deadline should follow sentencing; otherwise timing issues | Tying appeal to sentence creates absurd results and may deny appeal rights; complete restitution is a civil judgment with its own appeal period | Complete restitution appeals proceed independently (30-day civil appeal); tying appeal to sentencing would be impractical and potentially unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Laycock, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (requires separate determinations for complete and court-ordered restitution)
- State v. Brown, 342 P.3d 239 (Utah 2014) (court-ordered restitution is a subset of complete restitution)
- State v. Bowers, 57 P.3d 1065 (Utah 2002) (sentence is generally the final appealable order in criminal cases)
- Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 814 P.2d 1099 (Utah 1991) (reducing orders to judgments makes them immediately appealable)
- Salt Lake City v. Ausbeck, 274 P.3d 991 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (recognizes restitution orders entered after sentencing as separate appealable orders)
- State v. Gibson, 208 P.3d 543 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (restitution judgments have the same effect as ordinary civil judgments)