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 appealed following the entry of an order of restitution related to a case where the district court had previously determined the amounts owed in an amended judgment and sentence. The Defendant challenged the amount of restitution, the potential for double recovery due to a civil judgment against him, and the reasonableness of the payment plan set by the district court based on his income and expenses.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the restitution amount was unsupported by evidence, that awarding restitution to a victim who had obtained a civil judgment constituted double recovery, and that the payment plan was unreasonable given his financial situation.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the amount of restitution ordered by the district court was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether awarding restitution to a victim who also obtained a civil judgment against the Defendant constitutes double recovery.
• Whether the payment plan for restitution was reasonable given the Defendant's financial situation.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the district court's order of restitution.

Reasons

• Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Megan P. Duffy, and Zachary A. Ives concurred in the decision. The court found that the district court was within its rights to rely on evidence presented at trial to determine the restitution amount and that the postjudgment proceedings did not diminish the evidence's probative value (para 3). Regarding the potential for double recovery, the court noted that the district court's order allowed for appropriate offsets to prevent such an issue (para 4). On the challenge to the payment plan's reasonableness, the court held that the district court had discretion to determine the Defendant's ability to pay, considering the possibility of imputing income or reducing expenses, and that the Defendant could seek a review of the restitution order if his financial situation genuinely prevented payment (para 5).