[¶ 1] Mеarlyse Carson appeals a restitution order entered following her guilty plea and conviction for possession of stolen property. The district court ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $8,072.84, which included restitution for other items stolen or damaged during a burglary for which she was not convicted. We reverse and remand.
I
[¶ 2] Carson was arrested while in possession of several items stolen during a residential burglary two days before her arrest. The items stolen during the burglary included four rifles, ammunition, tools, two vehicles, and an enclosed trailer. Thе
[¶3] The State charged Carson with theft of property, alleging an unauthorized taking of property under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-02(1) or possession of stolen property under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-02(3). The items alleged in the six сounts were four rifles, ammunition, and “DeWalt tools, a mag lit [sic], and bolt cutter(s).” She pled guilty to each of the six counts. The factual basis provided in support of her guilty plea included Carson’s acknowledgment that she possessed-the charged items and that they had been takеn from the burglary victim’s residence. Carson did not admit to participation in the burglary or taking the property. The State sought restitution, and aftеr an evidentiary hearing, the district court ordered Carson to pay restitution in the amount of $8,072.84 for damages resulting from the burglary, including the cost tо replace other stolen items not recovered and repair damage to the trailer. The district court’s order concludеd “the record and the inferences that may be drawn from it” established a causal relationship between Carson’s criminal conduct and-the following damages:
$1,232.29 Items in Denali, Trailer, or Ford Explorer, or his home/driveway (jack stands, floor jack, lawn chair with canopy, stun gun, garage door remotes, toolkit, brake controller, Denali registration and owner’s manual, nebulizer pump and accessories, tie dоwn straps, T-wrench and flat bar, back-up camera kit, trailer hitch lock, Savage bolt action rifle w/scopc, 4 padlocks)
Fees paid to retrieve Denali from City impound $180.00
Keys and remotes for Denali $210.00
Key and remote for 2002 Ford Explorer $380.00
Re-key household locks $135.55
Lawn chairs left on the scene $35.00
Damage to trailer $5,900.00
[¶ 4] Carsоn appeals, asserting she should not have been required to pay restitution resulting from the burglary when she had been convicted only of possessing stolen property.
II
[¶ 5] When reviewing a restitution order, we look to whether the district court acted “within the limits set by stat
[¶ 6] In analyzing whether to order restitution, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(1)(a) requires the district court to consider the “reasonable damages sustained by the victim.” These damages “are limited to those directly related to the criminal offense and expenses actually incurred as а direct result of the defendant’s criminal action.”
Id.
This Court has interpreted “directly related” and “direct result” in this section as requiring “an immediate and intimate causal connection between the criminal conduct and the damages or expenses for which restitution is ordered.”
State v. Pippin,
[¶ 7] In Pippin, the State charged Joan Pippin with possession of stolen property and charged her former husband with multiple counts of burglary. Id. at 51. Bоth pled guilty, and the district court ordered each of them to pay restitution for the damages incurred by the burglary victims. Id. at 52. Pippin appealed, arguing the victims’ damages were not “directly related” to her crime of possession of stolen property and “their expеnses were not a ‘direct result’ of her commission of that crime.” Id. This Court agreed, stating, “In pleading guilty, Joan admitted only that she possessed certain items of property ... and no other property. There is insufficient evidence that, but for Joan’s act of possession of thаt property, the other property was discarded, sold or otherwise disposed of.” Id. at 53.
[¶ 8] The underlying facts here are in all material rеspects the same as in
Pippin.
Carson pled guilty to possession of several stolen items. She was not charged with burglary, only theft under theories of unauthorized taking or possession of property. The transcript shows she pled guilty only to possessing the stolen items. The district court’s ordеr and both- parties’ briefs on appeal all state her conviction was for possession of stolen property, not theft by taking. Thе State argues that because she was found in possession of stolen property only two days after it had been stolen, an inference can be drawn that she was involved in the taking of the property and thus responsible for all items taken at the same time. The State, hоwever, provides no authority that this inference is permissible in the context of restitution.
See In re Jakeem,
[¶ 9] The State could have sought restitution for temporary loss of use or physical damage to the rifles, ammunition, and tools, but it may not seek restitution for damages caused by the burglary or the criminal act of taking the property, crimes for which Carson was never convicted.
III
[¶ 10] We reverse the restitution order and remand for a new order consistent with this opinion.