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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT