State v. Moore, 209 N.C. App. 551

Defendant Moore was indicted for obtaining property by false pretenses for allegedly renting the house to tenants without owning it.
Evidence showed Wilson and Phythian occupied and paid rent to Moore; the house lacked utilities and suffered extensive damage.
The jury convicted Moore; the trial court sentenced him to six to eight months in prison, suspended on probation, and ordered restitution, court costs, and attorney's fees.
Restitution proceedings argued whether the victim was properly identified in the indictment and whether the amount was properly proved.
The Court of Appeals later vacated the restitution amount but found no error in the underlying conviction or most sentencing aspects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for false pretenses	Moore obtained money by renting the house to Wilson and Phythian.	Evidence shows no permission or ownership by Moore; any deception was not proven.	Evidence sufficient to submit to the jury.
Restitution to correct victim	Phythian was the victim named in the offense, so restitution to him is proper.	Restitution should be limited to the named victim or properly designated aggrieved party.	Restitution may be awarded to the aggrieved party, not limited to the indictment’s named victim.
Amount of restitution	Damages supported by the restitution worksheet and victim testimony.	Amount must be supported by evidence; worksheet alone is insufficient.	Restitution must be supported by the record; the specific amount must be proven with evidence, and excessive amounts may be vacated.
Restitution as a condition of probation	Statutory framework supports restitution as a probation condition to compensate the aggrieved party.	Not a civil judgment; ability to pay and proper amount must be shown.	Restitution as a probation condition is permissible and must be supported by evidence.
Judgment form and sentencing range	Box markings and range findings are required for certain sentences.	Wrong range markings; however, sentence itself falls within presumptive range.	Clerical error to mark the box; no error in the presumptive-range sentence.

State v. Wilson, 158 N.C.App. 235 (2003) (guides restitution evidentiary basis and statute integration)
State v. Cronin, 299 N.C. 229 (1980) (definition of obtaining by false pretenses)
State v. Wilson, 580 S.E.2d 386 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2003) (restitution statutory framework context)
State v. Freeman, 164 N.C.App. 673 (2004) (some evidence suffices to support restitution recommendation)
State v. Hunt, 80 N.C.App. 190 (1986) (victim testimony can support restitution amount)
State v. Daye, 78 N.C.App. 753 (1986) (restitution amount cannot be guess or conjecture)