Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the sentencing court properly inquired into the victim’s loss and considered the defendants’ ability to pay restitution. However, the court improperly delegated to a probation officer the discretion to determine the time and method of restitution payment, so the restitution order was vacated and remanded for the sentencing court to specify those terms.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the sentencing court made a sufficient inquiry into the victim's financial loss before ordering restitution.
- Whether the sentencing court properly considered the defendants' financial capacity to pay restitution.
- Whether the sentencing court could delegate to a probation officer the discretion to determine the time and method of payment of restitution.
- Whether the sentencing court violated Betterton's due-process rights by refusing to admit his medical records and refusing to accept additional testimony concerning his health and economic circumstances.
Holdings
- The sentencing court conducted a proper and sufficient inquiry into the amount of the victim's financial loss resulting from the defendants' criminal conduct.
- The sentencing court properly considered the defendants' ability to pay and was not required to believe their claims of no or limited capacity to pay.
- The sentencing court may not delegate to a probation officer the sentencing authority to determine the time and method of restitution payment. The court itself must specify those matters, although it may leave ministerial details to a probation officer if doing so requires no exercise of discretion.
Key quotations
“When payment of restitution is ordered by the court, “the time and method of payment or of the performance of the services must be specified.”” (¶ 11)
“It does not permit delegation of sentencing authority to set time and method of payment to the probation officer.” (¶ 13)
Factual background
At a foreclosure auction, the victim purchased a house occupied by Pease and began eviction proceedings. Before Pease left, she and Betterton removed property and fixtures, including countertops, a furnace, plumbing fixtures, and appliances. The victim's insurer paid $19,309.33 for the loss, and the victim had a $500 deductible. At sentencing, the defendants claimed limited or no ability to pay restitution, while the court found them apparently able-bodied and ordered restitution up to $19,809.33.
Procedural history
The defendants were indicted for Class B theft by unauthorized taking and entered no contest pleas pursuant to an agreement that would have reduced the charge if they paid $8,600 in restitution before sentencing. They did not pay, and the Superior Court sentenced each defendant to two and one-half years' imprisonment, with all but sixty days suspended, probation, and joint and several restitution up to $19,809.33, with the payment schedule to be set by the probation officer. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine granted leave to appeal the sentences, vacated the sentences to the extent of the restitution-order defect, and remanded for the Superior Court to specify the time and method of payment; it affirmed in all other respects.
Remand instructions
The Superior Court must set the time and method of payment of restitution itself, without delegating discretionary sentencing authority to the probation officer. The sentences are affirmed in all other respects.