State v. Trujillo, 405 P.3d 745

Trujillo pleaded guilty to felony failure to comply with an officer’s signal to stop (evading), and the district court accepted the plea.
A PSI listed “no victims or restitution owed.” No evidence of victim damages was included in the PSI.
At sentencing the State sought $2,500 in restitution for impound fees allegedly incurred by the owner of the vehicle Trujillo was driving; the prosecutor acknowledged the amount was "ridiculous" and offered no documentary proof.
Trujillo was not charged with or convicted of theft or statutory abandonment of the vehicle and maintained he had borrowed the car from a niece in good faith.
The district court ordered $2,500 restitution without explanation; Trujillo appealed, challenging the restitution as unsupported and beyond his admitted or convicted conduct.

Issue	State's Argument	Trujillo's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be ordered for impound fees when defendant pleaded only to failure to stop	Impound fees resulted from Trujillo’s failure to stop and subsequent abandonment, so restitution is appropriate	Restitution is improper because Trujillo was not convicted of theft or abandonment and did not admit responsibility for those damages	Reversed — restitution improper; State failed to show damages arose from the crime of conviction and Trujillo did not admit responsibility
Whether State met its burden to prove pecuniary loss proximately caused by criminal conduct	Prosecutor argued causal nexus (car would not have been impounded but for defendant’s conduct) despite no formal evidence	PSI and record contain no evidence linking evasion to impound fees; speculative inferences cannot supply causation	Reversed — State did not prove but-for causation or non-attenuated causal nexus; speculative inference insufficient

State v. Mast, 40 P.3d 1143 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (restitution limited to amounts proximately caused by the criminal conduct of conviction)
State v. Bickley, 60 P.3d 582 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution for crimes not admitted or convicted)
State v. Brown, 221 P.3d 273 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (State bears burden to prove economic injury arose from defendant’s criminal activities using a modified but-for test)
State v. McBride, 940 P.2d 539 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (articulation of modified but-for causation test and analysis of attenuated causal nexus)
State v. Larsen, 221 P.3d 277 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (court may not infer admissions of theft where defendant did not plead to theft; restitution requires clear admission or conviction)
State v. Watson, 987 P.2d 1289 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (cannot order restitution where defendant pleaded only to an offense that produced no pecuniary damages)