AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, after consuming intoxicating liquor, damaged an acquaintance's mobile home window and crashed his vehicle into another individual's truck. Following these events, the Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and two counts of criminal damage to property. At the plea hearing, the State provided an estimate for the truck damage, which the Defendant contested. Despite filing a motion for a hearing on the restitution amount, the district court issued a judgment incorporating the State's estimate without holding the requested hearing. The Defendant later signed a probation restitution agreement acknowledging the restitution amount but subsequently filed another motion challenging the restitution amount (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court failed to hold a hearing to challenge the restitution amount before issuing the judgment and erred by finding he waived his right to challenge restitution by signing a probation restitution agreement (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce the restitution amount ordered to be paid by the Defendant more than ninety days following the judgment, from which the Defendant did not appeal (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court was required to hold a hearing to allow the Defendant to contest the restitution amount before issuing the judgment.
• Whether the district court erred by relying on the Defendant’s signed consent to the restitution plan in denying the motion to challenge the restitution amount.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to challenge the restitution amount (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee, Zachary A. Ives, and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, held that the district court's judgment and sentence, including the restitution amount, was a final order that could only be challenged by appealing within thirty days or seeking rehearing or reconsideration within ninety days. The Court found that the Defendant's appeal, filed more than a year after the judgment and sentence, was outside the permissible timeframe for challenging the restitution amount. The Court also determined that the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the restitution order months after sentencing, as motions to reduce sentences are limited to the ninety-day period following entry of judgment. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to modify the restitution amount based on the Defendant's challenge (paras 5-12).