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

• From September 18, 2013, to March 1, 2016, the Defendant and his wife were hired by Shirley Cashwell to provide companionship and medical care to her son, Jonathan, who had physical and cognitive impairments. During this period, Shirley Cashwell wrote seventy checks to the Defendant totaling $520,770.25 and fourteen checks to Claire totaling $108,021. Additionally, two checks were written to the Sandoval County Treasurer that were not credited to any Cashwell property. Jonathan also wrote a check to the County Treasurer, which he gave to the Defendant. The Defendant was indicted and charged with various crimes related to larceny, fraud, and acting as an unlicensed investment advisor. He pleaded guilty to one count of tax fraud, one count of acting as an unlicensed investment advisor, and one count of fraud (Exceeds $20,000) (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the district court should award $582,294.25 in restitution, representing the total payments made to the Defendant by the victims over the relevant time frame. The State maintained that it was not required to link each payment to a specific act of misrepresentation due to the Defendant's guilty plea encompassing the entire period of payments (para 13).
• Defendant: Contended that he should only pay $36,748 in restitution, corresponding to the value of the checks he received for payment of property taxes and property improvements, and the amount he stipulated to paying in the guilty plea agreement. The Defendant argued the State's failure to link each check to a specific act of misrepresentation was insufficient to show he induced the payments through fraud, thus failing to establish a causal connection between his fraud and the victims' restitution (para 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof from the State to the Defendant to show a direct, causal relationship between the Defendant’s fraudulent conduct and the victims’ damages.
• Whether the district court's reliance on federal precedent was contrary to New Mexico case law and the victim restitution statute.

Disposition

• The district court's order for restitution, requiring the Defendant to pay $406,229.75, was affirmed (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jacqueline R. Medina authoring the opinion, and concurrence by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Kristina Bogardus, held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its restitution order. The court found that the State had presented sufficient evidence linking the Defendant's criminal conduct to the victims' damages and that the Defendant had admitted to the causal connection when accepting the plea and disposition agreement. The court also determined that the district court properly applied New Mexico precedent in determining the restitution amount awarded to the victims. It was concluded that the district court's order for restitution was supported by New Mexico precedent and Section 31-17-1, thus the district court did not abuse its discretion based on a misunderstanding of the law (paras 16-32).