ILNews

Restitution continues beyond probation period

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed today that trial courts must inquire about a defendant's ability to pay when they order restitution as a condition of probation or a suspended sentence and a restitution obligation continues beyond the end of a probationary period.

However, in Jeffrey Pearson v. State of Indiana, No. 45S03-0712-CR-574, the high court affirmed the trial court's order for Pearson to pay at least $150 a month in restitution as a condition of his probation even though the trial court didn't inquire about his ability to pay.

On appeal, Pearson only raised the issue of whether the trial court erred in ordering him to pay more than $50,000 in restitution during his one-year probationary period without determining if he could pay that amount.

Pearson was a police officer in the East Chicago Police Department and served as treasurer of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #59. When two widows complained to the lodge they hadn't received death benefits following their husbands' deaths, an internal investigation showed that funds were missing.

Pearson agreed to plead guilty to a count of conversion to have a felony theft charge dismissed. He was sentenced to one year in the Lake County Jail, suspended and served on probation, and ordered to make restitution to the victims. The state introduced evidence to show Pearson should pay more than $50,000 in restitution; Pearson argued he should only have to pay $300, but introduced no evidence to support his amount.

The trial court accepted the terms of the plea agreement and without making a finding to his ability to pay, sentenced Pearson to pay $52,685.97 in restitution in increments of at least $150 a month.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order because it failed to determine his ability to pay and remanded the cause to the trial court.

In the unanimous opinion authored by Justice Robert Rucker, the high court does hold that a trial court is required to ask about a defendant's ability to pay when it orders restitution as a condition of probation or of a suspended sentence. The reason behind this is to prevent indigent defendants from being imprisoned for violating probation as a result of failing to pay the restitution, wrote Justice Rucker.

Pearson's argument in appeal is an assumption his obligation to pay back the restitution ends when his probationary period stops, but Indiana statute and previous rulings show that the expiration of a probationary period doesn't terminate the defendant's obligation to make restitution to a crime victim, he wrote, citing Indiana Code Section 35-50-5-3(f) and Savage v. State, 655 N.E.2d 1223, 1225 (Ind. 1995).

The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's order, finding that because Pearson didn't challenge the amount of restitution or his ability to pay the $150 a month, there isn't a need to remand to the trial court.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT