AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was indicted on charges related to forgery and embezzlement during his employment at Foreign Accents, a company owned by the Victim. He entered a no-contest plea to one count of embezzlement (over $20,000), a second-degree felony offense, for actions occurring between May 4, 2006, and July 6, 2007. The district court ordered restitution in the amount of $72,537.81, following a plea agreement that included restitution terms (para 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the civil statute of limitations barred criminal restitution, that restitution should be reduced by the amount already paid by an insurance company to the Victim, and that restitution claims unrelated to the forgery and embezzlement charges to which he pled no-contest should be deducted (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant should pay the full amount of restitution as determined, including amounts covered by insurance due to subrogation claims, and that all charges arising from the Defendant's actions, even those not filed or dismissed because of the plea agreement, were valid for restitution (paras 9, 13, 18).

Legal Issues

• Whether the civil statute of limitations bars criminal restitution.
• Whether restitution should be reduced by the amount already paid by an insurance company to the Victim.
• Whether restitution should exclude claims unrelated to the charges to which the Defendant pled no-contest.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's decision on the applicability of the civil statute of limitations and the non-reduction of restitution by insurance payments.
• The court reversed the district court's decision regarding restitution for damages unrelated to the embezzlement charge but affirmed the inclusion of restitution for missing rugs related to the embezzlement charge (para 19).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee (Kristina Bogardus, Judge, and Zachary A. Ives, Judge, concurring):
  The court found that the civil statute of limitations does not apply to criminal restitution, as restitution is governed by a separate statute with its own provisions. The court emphasized that restitution aims to recover "actual damages" as defined by what could be recovered in a civil action, not limited by the civil statute of limitations (paras 8-12).
  Regarding the insurance payment, the court held that the insurance company, having paid the Victim's loss, is considered a "victim" under the restitution statute. Thus, the Defendant's restitution was not to be reduced by the insurance payment, aligning with the purpose of restitution to compensate for the societal costs of misconduct (paras 13-15).
  The court agreed with the Defendant that restitution for damages to an office dumpster and a returned rug were unrelated to the embezzlement charge and thus should not have been included. However, it upheld the inclusion of restitution for missing rugs, as they were directly related to the embezzlement for which the Defendant was convicted (paras 16-18).