State v. Randall, 447 P.3d 1232

Background

Dee Allen Randall operated a Ponzi-like scheme through Horizon Entities, selling private placement promissory notes promising 9–17% returns and commingling funds; over ~10 years he defrauded more than 500 investors of over $36.8 million.
Randall pleaded guilty to four counts of securities fraud and one count of engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity; the plea agreement stated he "agrees to an order of 'complete' restitution pertaining to all victims, whether named or unnamed."
At sentencing Randall admitted responsibility, expressed remorse, and proposed a $1.4 million repayment plan, but asked for probation to attempt repayment; the State sought prison and full restitution.
The sentencing court limited the relevant victim pool to investors defrauded between June 2009 and April 2011 (156 victims) and calculated complete restitution at $10.2 million (rather than the $36.8M spreadsheet total).
The court, after considering statutory factors including Randall’s limited financial resources and the harm to victims, set court-ordered restitution equal to complete restitution: $10.2 million.
Randall appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly included 156 victims (overbroad scope) and (2) the court abused discretion by making court-ordered restitution equal to complete restitution given his inability to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Randall)	Held
Scope of complete restitution: may court include 156 investors for losses between June 2009–Apr 2011?	Plea agreement and statute permit restitution for all victims directly harmed by the pattern of unlawful activity; court may determine victim pool.	Plea covered a narrower period/limited victims (at most 12 named victims); restitution should be limited accordingly.	Court may include 156 investors; plea and admissions cover unnamed victims and court did not abuse discretion in setting complete restitution at $10.2M.
Causation for restitution: did Randall's criminal conduct proximately cause the investors' losses?	State: Randall’s misrepresentations and Ponzi practices were the but-for and foreseeable cause of investor losses.	Randall: challenges causation for many investors.	Court properly found proximate cause: misrepresentations and use of new funds to pay old investors caused losses.
Court-ordered restitution amount: must the sentence account for defendant’s inability to pay so court-ordered restitution < complete restitution?	State: despite limited resources, statutory factors permit substantial court-ordered restitution to compensate victims and deter/rehabilitate.	Randall: given age, imprisonment, and lack of assets, court-ordered restitution should be minimal (e.g., $31,000).	Court considered statutory factors and did not abuse discretion in setting court-ordered restitution equal to complete restitution ($10.2M).
Whether sentencing court abused discretion in restitution determinations	N/A	N/A	No abuse of discretion; restitution findings and statutory-factor analysis were adequate and reasonable.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Laycock, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (restitution may equal complete restitution and serves compensatory and rehabilitative goals)
State v. Hight, 182 P.3d 922 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (court has broad discretion to order restitution for pecuniary damages resulting from a guilty plea to a broad offense)
State v. Ogden, 416 P.3d 1132 (Utah 2018) (proximate cause required for pecuniary-damage restitution)
State v. Oliver, 427 P.3d 495 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (proximate-cause test: but-for causation and foreseeability)
State v. Thomas, 372 P.3d 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (review of restitution orders: deferential abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Bickley, 60 P.3d 582 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution for conduct to which he did not admit responsibility; plea admissions can authorize broader restitution)
McCorvey v. Utah State Dep’t of Transp., 868 P.2d 41 (Utah 1993) (proximate-cause principles for causation of damages)