ILNews

COA finds evidence supporting restitution order too flimsy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A victim of a burglary will have to turn to the civil process to get restitution after the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions a trial court’s order that provided the victim with $711.95 in compensation.

The state charged Carlin Iltzsch with Class B felony burglary and filed a habitual offender allegation after he was caught burglarizing the Indianapolis home of James Whittemore on May 30, 2011. Iltzsch was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years on the burglary court, enhanced by 10 years based on the habitual offender finding.

In addition, the trial court ordered Iltzsch to pay restitution in the amount of $711.95. The restitution order was based solely on the Victim Impact Statement from Whittemore.

Iltzsch appealed, arguing the evidence submitted at his sentencing hearing about the victim’s loss was insufficient to support the trial court’s order of restitution.

Although the COA acknowledged a defendant waives appellate review of the restitution order if he or she fails to object at trial to the entry of the restitution order or to the evidence concerning the amount of the restitution, it noted the “vast weight of recent caselaw” that indicates appellate courts will review restitution orders even where the defendant did not object.

The COA then cited J.H. v. State, 950 N.E.2d 731, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), as being instructive when considering the type of evidence necessary to support a restitution order. Whittemore only provided “bare, unsworn assertions” that his property had been damaged and that his total loss was $711.95.  

Writing for the majority, Judge Paul Mathias concluded, “The State had a full and fair opportunity to obtain and present evidence concerning Whittemore’s actual loss at Iltzsch’s sentencing hearing, but failed to do so. We believe that allowing the State to conduct a new restitution hearing and to present additional evidence concerning the loss would allow the State an inappropriate second bite at the apple. We therefore conclude that the State is not entitled to hold a new restitution order. We acknowledge that Whittemore must now resort to the civil process if he wishes to seek redress for his losses. However, this remedy will require nothing more than what the law requires: sufficient, admissible evidence to support his claims.”

 

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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT