Summary
The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed a challenge to a $9,104.35 restitution award imposed after Lance Michael Weeks pleaded guilty to multiple offenses. The court held that Weeks received a full restitution hearing because the presentence report constituted evidence and the rules of evidence do not apply to restitution proceedings. It also held that Weeks waived his challenge to the sentencing court’s failure to reference each statutory restitution factor and that the omission was not plain error, affirming the Utah Court of Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the sentencing court provided Weeks a full restitution hearing under Utah Code section 76-3-201(4)(e) when it relied on a presentence report containing information that would not necessarily be admissible at trial.
- Whether the sentencing court committed plain error by failing to reference on the record each factor listed in Utah Code section 76-3-201(8)(b) and (c).
- Whether Weeks waived his challenge to the sentencing court's failure to reference each statutory restitution factor by failing to raise that objection below.
Holdings
- A full hearing under Utah Code section 76-3-201(4)(e) does not require the State to present evidence admissible under the rules of evidence because the rules of evidence do not apply to restitution hearings as sentencing proceedings. The presentence report, which was the only evidence presented and supported the restitution amount, was sufficient in this case.
- Utah Code section 76-3-201(4)(d)(i) requires the sentencing court to place the reasons for its restitution decision in the record, but does not require the court to reference each factor listed in section 76-3-201(8)(b) and (c).
- Weeks waived the argument by failing to object on that ground at the restitution hearing, and the sentencing court's omission did not constitute plain error.
Key quotations
“A full hearing under subsection 76-3-201(4)(e) of the Utah Code does not require that the State present evidence that would be admissible at trial.” (61 P.3d at 1004)
“We hold that the presentence report sufficiently supported the sentencing court's conclusion, especially in light of the fact that it was the only evidence presented at the restitution hearing.” (61 P.3d at 1005)
“To the extent Robertson stands for such a proposition, we expressly disavow its reasoning.” (61 P.3d at 1007)
Factual background
Weeks pleaded guilty to five third-degree felonies and two Class A misdemeanors. At sentencing, the district court ordered him to pay $9,104.35 in restitution, based principally on a presentence report summarizing victim statements, police reports, and automobile-insurance records. Weeks did not object to the amount at sentencing but later requested a restitution hearing and challenged the report's evidentiary foundation; the district court upheld the award after reviewing the report and hearing argument.
Procedural history
Weeks pleaded guilty to five third-degree felonies and two Class A misdemeanors. The district court imposed incarceration and ordered $9,104.35 in restitution; after sentencing, Weeks requested a restitution hearing and challenged the evidentiary basis for the award. The district court upheld the award, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals.