State of Tennessee v. Joseph Gevedon

No. M2020-00359-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. June 8, 2023) · Supreme Court of Tennessee · June 8, 2023 · No. No. M2020-00359-SC-R11-CD

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a restitution order was final and appealable even though it did not specify payment terms, because the payment deadline defaulted to the expiration of the defendant’s sentence under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304(g). The court further held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider Joseph Gevedon’s financial resources and ability to pay when setting restitution. The court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals, vacated the restitution order, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. A restitution order is final and appealable when it specifies the amount of restitution and is imposed as part of the defendant's sentence, even if it does not expressly include payment terms or a payment schedule.
  2. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering restitution without considering the defendant's financial resources and future ability to pay, as required by the version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304(d) applicable when the offense was committed.
  3. If Gevedon completed his sentence, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a restitution order; if he had not completed his sentence, the court could order restitution only after appropriately considering the victims' pecuniary loss and his financial resources and ability to pay.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a restitution order is a final and appealable order under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 when it specifies the restitution amount but does not expressly state payment terms or a payment schedule.
  2. Whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304(g) supplies a default payment date when restitution is ordered as part of a sentence without specified payment terms.
  3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering $30,490.76 in restitution without considering the defendant's financial resources and future ability to pay.
  4. What proceedings are required on remand if the defendant has completed or has not completed his sentence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (35)

  • State v. Cavin, No. E2020-01333-SC-R11-CD, ___ S.W.3d ____, 2023 WL _________ (Tenn. ______, 2023)(followed)
  • State v. Welch, 595 S.W.3d 615, 621 (Tenn. 2020)(followed)
  • State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tenn. 2015)(followed)
  • State v. Howard, 504 S.W.3d 260, 269 (Tenn. 2016)(followed)
  • Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995)(followed)
  • State v. Tolle, 591 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Tenn. 2019)(followed)
  • Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009)(followed)
  • Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758, 764 (Tenn. 2015)(followed)
  • Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 405 S.W.3d 41, 44 (Tenn. 2013)(followed)
  • Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 527 (Tenn. 2010)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 35.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…