Defendant Barbara Yvonne Mauer appeals her conviction of misdemeanor cruelty to animals, arguing primarily that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the State presentеd substantial evidence of the offense, and, therefore, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion. We conclude, however, that insufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court’s restitution order. Consequently, we vacate thаt order and remand for rehearing.
Facts
The State’s evidence tended to establish the following facts at trial: At roughly 11:00 a.m. on 6 September 2007, Officer Melissa Hooks with the Cumberland County Animal Control Department responded to a complaint about the conditions in a home on Sandstone Lane in Cumberland County, North Carolina. When no one answered the door, Hooks looked around the outside of the home, noticing a “moderate” smell of rotting garbage and the smell of urine and feces. Hooks saw food and water bowls on the front steр with bugs in them. In the yard, Hooks saw multiple pans of cat litter and litter bags, animal traps, animal carriers, roof tiles, hay, and over *548 flowing garbage cans. She tried to enter the backyard through a gate but was unable to do so because the gate was blocked on the оther side with debris. Hooks took pictures of the house and reported her investigation to her supervisor.
Animal Control obtained an inspection warrant, and the next day, Hooks, along with other Animal Control officers and Cumberland County Sheriff’s deputies, returned to the residence, which they had learned was owned by defendant. Getting out of their vehicles to execute the warrant, they noticed that the smell of feces and urine became stronger as they approached the residence. When no one answered the front door, the deputies pushed open the door, although it was difficult to do so because it was blocked by feces, trash, and clothes on the inside. As the officers tried to enter the house, the smell was “overpowering,” making their eyes water. The officers were unable to go inside and had to call the fire department to come and use positive pressure fans to ventilate the house. The fire department also provided Hook and other officers with breathing apparatus so that they could inspect the inside of the house.
When the animal control officers finally went inside, they saw at least 15 to 20 cats running around. The floor was covered with feces and urine and the officers could not walk around inside without stepping in it. Some of the feces were fresh, but some of it was old, with mold on it. In the frоnt room of the house, eight to 10 cats were running around several metal cages covered with feces and fur. In the kitchen, the stove, sinks, and counter tops were covered with feces and urine. The furniture had feces on it and “leftover” food. The cats also had feces on them, and around the windows and doors were “streaks” from where, according to the animal control officers, the cats had been jumping trying to get out of the house.
Inside the house were several bags of cat food, but none of them were open. There were also litter boxes inside, most of them having been turned over. There were piles of clothes and trash on the floor in the rooms and halls and they were covered in cat hair, feces, and urine. In a back room of the house there was a feeder with fresh cat food in it. All the windows and doors in the house were shut and locked, with no access for the cats to go outside.
The officers were able to catch three of the cats before they had to leave the premises due to the expiration of the inspection warrant. Three days later, on 10 September 2007, animal control officers returned to the residence to search for more cats. The inspectors from *549 the county health department were there and they had condemned the house. The animal control officers saw defendant walking in and out of the house, cleaning it out. They saw several feral cats running around outside the house, but when they went inside, they found no animals.
Around the same time as the investigation at Sandstone Lane, animal control was also сalled out to investigate a complaint about a dead animal on Elliot Farm Road in Cumberland County. Officers Jason Seifert and Alan Canady found a dead cat in an upstairs room of the house. Inside the house, Seifert and Canady found the floors covered in two-to-thrеe inches of feces. There was one room, above the garage, with clean carpet and no cat feces in it. A bed was in the room, with covers messed up like someone had recently slept in it. In the front yard near the driveway, they found a piecе of mail with defendant’s name on it.
Defendant was charged with one count of cruelty to animals. Defendant was tried and convicted in district court and defendant appealed for a trial de novo in superior court. At the close of the State’s evidence in superior court, and, after electing to not present any evidence in her defense, defendant moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The trial court denied both motions. The jury found defendant guilty and the trial court ordered a 30 day suspended sentencе and 12 months probation, with no animals on her property or in her possession during her probation period. The court further ordered defendant to undergo a mental health evaluation and to pay $259.25 in restitution to animal control. Defendant gave notice оf appeal in open court.
I
Defendant first argues on appeal that the trial court should have granted her motion to dismiss the charge of cruelty to animals for lack of sufficient evidence. On appeal, the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss fоr insufficient evidence is reviewed de novo.
State v. McKinnon,
To prove misdemeanor cruelty to animals, the State must present evidence that the defendant did “intentionаlly overdrive, overload, wound, injure, torment, kill, or deprive of necessary sustenance, or cause or procure to be overdriven, overloaded, wounded, injured, tormented, killed, or deprived of necessary sustenance, any animal[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-360(a) (2007);
State v. Coble,
The evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, tends to estаblish that the odor of cat feces and ammonia emanating from defendant’s house was strong enough that it could be smelled outside of the property. The smell was so “overwhelming” that the animal control officers were unable to enter the house without the fire dеpartment first ventilating the house and giving the officers the breathing apparatus used when going into burning buildings. While the fire department was ventilating defendant’s house, neighborhood residents from two blocks away came outside to find out what the smell was.
When the officers were ablе to enter the residence, there was so much fecal matter and debris on the floor that the front door was difficult to open. The officers observed that all the doors and windows were closed and feces and urine covered “everything” — including all the floors, furniture, and counter tops. Some of the feces were fresh while some were old and had mold on them. The officers, as well as the cats, were unable to walk in the house without stepping in the feces and urine. The officers also observed that cats, covered in their own feces and urine, were leaving streak marks from jumping on the walls, windows, and doors trying to get out of the house. We conclude that this evidence is sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable jury that defendant “tormented” cat C142, causing it unjustifiable
*551
pain or suffering, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-360(c).
See People v. Reed,
121 Cal. App.3d Supp. 26, 31,
II
Defendant’s only other argument on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in ordering her to pay restitution without sufficient evidence to support the award. The amount of restitution ordered by the trial court must be suppоrted by competent evidence presented at trial or sentencing.
State v. Wilson,
The State contends, however, that defеndant waived appellate review of this issue by failing to object to the order of restitution in the trial court. Contrary to the State’s contention, this Court has consistently held that pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1446(d)(18) (2007) a defendant’s failure to specifically object to the trial court’s еntry of an award of restitution does not preclude appellate review.
See State v. Shelton,
The State further objects to review of the restitution award, arguing that defendant stipulated to the restitution award by remaining silent when the trial court explained to her that it was ordering her to
*552
pay $259.25 in restitution. “While it is true that ‘[s]ilence, under some circumstances, may be deemed assent,’ a stipulation’s terms must nevertheless ‘be definite and certain in order to afford a basis for judicial decision, and it is essential that they be assented to by the parties or those representing them.”
State v. Replogle,
The State argues alternatively that even if defendant’s challenge to the restitution order is preserved and defendant did not stipulate to the award, there is nonetheless sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s order. The State points to the superior court’s reviewing the restitution worksheet submitted to the district court and contained in the superior court’s file, arguing that “[tjhis was analogous to the State resubmitting the restitution worksheet to the trial court....” This Court hаs held, however, that a restitution worksheet, unsupported by testimony or documentation, is insufficient to support an order of restitution.
See State v. Swann,
— N.C. App. -, -,
No error in part; vacated and remanded in part.