ILNews

Circuit Court upholds $500,000 restitution order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who waived his right in plea negotiations to challenge his sentence or an order of restitution may not appeal the imposition of $533,000 in restitution to a victim depicted in child pornography, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held July 14.

In United States of America v. Nathaniel Josiah Worden, No. 10-3567, Nathaniel Worden, who pleaded guilty to one count of advertising child pornography, challenged that he pay restitution of nearly a half million dollars to victim “Amy.” In exchange for dropping three other charges, Worden pleaded guilty to the advertising charge and agreed to a comprehensive waiver of his appellate rights, including appealing a restitution order.  He was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The government petitioned for the restitution under the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act about five months after Worden pleaded guilty. Worden argued that a psychologist’s testimony regarding Amy’s future treatment was too speculative to support the restitution award and there was no evidence that he had proximately caused Amy’s injury. The court ordered Worden to pay the full amount requested by the government.

The 7th Circuit concluded Worden waived his right to appeal the restitution order. Several times during his plea agreement hearing, he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the restitution order. He believes that he should be able to appeal the amount he was ordered to pay. Several other Circuit courts have concluded that when a defendant waives his right to appeal his “sentence,” an appeal of restitution order falls with the scope of the waiver, wrote Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. Others have concluded that a defendant didn’t waive his right to appeal the amount by entering into an agreement that waives the right to appeal the “sentence” imposed.

But in this case, Worden waived his right to appeal the amount of restitution as well as the order itself. They also held because they didn’t reach the merits in this appeal, the judges don’t need to address the Circuit split arising from other cases involving whether the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act requires a showing of proximate causation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT