State v. Kirkland

A trial court may conduct additional fact-finding relevant to the amount of a restitution during the sentencing phase of trial. However, a defendant can only be required to pay restitution for conduct which he was convicted of or admitted to doing.

Defendant appealed a portion of a judgment ordering him to pay restitution to the victim of the theft for which he was convicted. While high on methamphetamine, Defendant went into the victim’s bedroom and removed jewelry from her dresser drawer. He took at least some of this jewelry to a pawn shop so that he could gain money to pay prior court fines. He plead guilty to first-degree theft. The indictment that Defendant pled guilty to mentioned “jewelry” though Defendant later said that he only stole a single necklace and shouldn’t have to pay restitution for other items of jewelry that the victim claims were stolen in the incident. The Court held that the trial court properly took account of additional facts presented at the hearing to determine the amount of damages the victim incurred. These facts included that he recalled selling some jewelry at different locations and he opened multiple jewelry boxes in the dresser drawer. The calculation was made in review of evidence offered at trial, the indictment stating that “jewelry” had been stolen, and Defendant pleading guilty to the indictment in full. Affirmed.