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 pleaded guilty to four charges and was sentenced by the district court to pay restitution as a condition of his probation. The court set the restitution amount at $32,893.11 and required the Defendant to collaborate with probation and parole to devise a restitution plan for court approval or modification. However, there is no record of a restitution plan being filed with the district court (paras 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Valencia County, James Lawrence Sanchez, District Judge, April 22, 2016: The district court ordered the Defendant to make restitution as a condition of his probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argues that the district court erred in awarding restitution without a filed restitution plan, challenging the order itself (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contends that the appeal is premature as no restitution plan has been entered in the district court, and the manner of satisfying the restitution obligation has not been established (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appeal of the district court's order on restitution is premature in the absence of a filed restitution plan (para 4).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as premature for lack of a final order concerning restitution (para 6).

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The court found the appeal to be premature based on the precedent set in State v. Candy L., which held that an appeal of a restitution order prior to the filing of a restitution plan is premature. The court reasoned that the order was not final because it did not dispose of the case to the fullest extent possible, as it anticipated the subsequent preparation and filing of a restitution plan with the court. The court also noted the Defendant's concern about being executed against for restitution from his wages but found no evidence of such execution in the record. The court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, allowing the Defendant the opportunity to address any premature garnishment issues upon remand to the district court (paras 4-6).