State v. Stachowski, 103 A.3d 618

Kenneth Stachowski committed multiple home-improvement violations (three contracts) and later passed a bad check; separate criminal dockets resulted.
District Court imposed suspended sentences and probation for the home-improvement cases and ordered restitution to those victims; Stachowski defaulted and probation was revoked.
In Circuit Court, parties negotiated a plea: Stachowski pleaded guilty to the bad-check charge (other theft count nolle prossed) and agreed, as part of the plea, to pay restitution to the three home-improvement victims; the court accepted the plea and imposed consecutive sentences with probation on the bad-check conviction conditioned on restitution.
Stachowski challenged the restitution requirement as unauthorized because the restitution related to crimes unrelated (factually and legally) to the bad-check conviction.
The Court of Special Appeals struck the restitution condition; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether a trial court may order restitution for crimes unrelated to the conviction when the defendant expressly agrees to restitution as part of a plea agreement.

Issue	State's Argument	Stachowski's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court can condition probation on payment of restitution for victims of crimes unrelated to the conviction when the defendant expressly agrees in a plea agreement	Permissible under Lee/Walczak exception: an express, voluntary plea agreement can authorize restitution for other crimes	Statute requires restitution to be a "direct result" of the crime of conviction; unrelated crimes fall outside CP § 11-603 scope	Court reversed Court of Special Appeals: such restitution is authorized where defendant voluntarily and expressly agrees as part of a valid plea agreement (Lee exception applies to unrelated crimes)
Whether Stachowski's agreement to pay restitution was knowing and voluntary	Agreement was negotiated, announced on the record, and implemented by the court; thus voluntary	Claimed coercion due to incarceration and financial hardship, undermining voluntariness	Court found plea and restitution agreement knowing and voluntary on the record; voluntariness sufficient
Whether Lee should be overruled or narrowed (stare decisis / statutory interpretation)	Lee is sound, consistent with restitution goals and widely followed; legislature has not abrogated it	Argued Lee conflicts with the statutory "direct result" requirement and should be limited	Court declined to abrogate Lee; reaffirmed the plea-agreement exception to allow restitution for other crimes when voluntary and express

Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422 (holds restitution ordinarily limited to the crime of conviction)
Lee v. State, 307 Md. 74 (recognizes plea-agreement exception permitting restitution for unconvicted charges when defendant expressly agrees)
Silver v. State, 420 Md. 415 (clarifies that the defendant must expressly agree in the plea to restitution for uncharged conduct)
Pete v. State, 384 Md. 47 (discusses restitution’s punitive and rehabilitative goals and limits)
Goff v. State, 387 Md. 344 (addresses direct-result requirement for restitution)
United States v. Hugey, 495 U.S. 411 (federal limitation discussed historically; prompted later federal statutory change)