State v. Plante, 184 A.3d 873

William C. Plante pleaded nolo contendere to Class D criminal mischief after an earlier indictment for aggravated (Class C) criminal mischief; the State dismissed the aggravated count.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Plante lacked present capacity to pay restitution but had not proved lack of future capacity, and ordered $7,500 restitution at $25/month beginning June 2018 (one year after sentencing).
The court also ordered a $20 payment to the Victims' Compensation Fund and entered an unconditional discharge. Plante moved to correct or reduce sentence and was denied.
Plante appealed directly, challenging the court's factual findings and discretionary determination about his capacity to pay and raised, in a reply brief, undeveloped equal protection and due process arguments.
The Maine Law Court treated the appeal as a direct appeal of sentence and considered whether any illegality apparent on the record justified review; it also noted a clerical error in Plante’s middle initial to be corrected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court's factual findings and discretionary determination of future capacity to pay restitution are reviewable on direct appeal	Plante: court erred in findings/abused discretion in concluding he may have future capacity to pay restitution	State: direct appeal cannot review factual/discretionary sentencing determinations; only illegality apparent on record or sentence-review procedure applies	Dismissed: factual and discretionary rulings are not reviewable on direct appeal; appeal dismissed
Whether Plante's undeveloped constitutional claims (equal protection, due process) render the sentence reviewable as an illegality apparent on the record	Plante: constitutional issues warrant review to protect rights	State: Plante raised these only in reply and without developed legal authority; no illegality apparent on the record	Rejected: constitutional claims undeveloped and unsupported, so no basis for direct review
Whether Plante was eligible for sentence review by the Sentence Review Panel	Plante: sought review via direct appeal (did not pursue Sentence Review Panel)	State: sentence-review process requires imprisonment of one year or more; Plante was not so sentenced	Not eligible: sentence-review process unavailable because no imprisonment of ≥1 year; thus factual/discretionary review unavailable

State v. Davenport, 138 A.3d 1205 (Me. 2016) (direct appeals cannot review sentencing court's factual or discretionary determinations; sentence-review panel procedure applies when imprisonment of one year or more is imposed)
State v. Bean, 184 A.3d 373 (Me. 2018) (direct appeal of sentence is limited to illegality apparent on the record)
State v. Bennett, 114 A.3d 994 (Me. 2015) (sentence-review eligibility requires a sentence of imprisonment of one year or more)
State v. Johnson, 667 A.2d 110 (Me. 1995) (historical rule vacating restitution order based on then-applicable requirement of express finding of present capacity to pay)
State v. Bradley, 138 A.3d 1210 (Me. 2016) (discusses restitution statute amendments and burdens concerning proof of incapacity to pay)