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

• Tanya Pacheco and Sonnie Pacheco each pleaded guilty to one count of larceny over $500 but not more than $2500 for stealing various items from Dale Perkins. Their plea agreements included a conditional discharge with the condition, among others, that they pay restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined by probation authorities. After a restitution hearing, the district court ordered them to pay a total of $10,628.41 in restitution to the victim (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that the maximum sum of restitution the court could order was $2500 each, in accordance with the larceny charges to which they pleaded guilty. They believed their plea agreements implied a maximum restitution amount of $2500 each and argued that any ambiguity regarding the restitution amount should have been clarified by the district court before accepting their pleas (paras 2, 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State, by not challenging the district court's interpretation of the restitution statute, implicitly supported the court's authority to award damages a victim could recover in a civil action arising out of the same facts or event, leading to the restitution order exceeding the amounts tied to the specific larceny charges (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court properly exercised its discretion in ordering Defendants to pay restitution exceeding the amounts tied to their larceny charges, contrary to Defendants' understanding of their plea agreements.
• Whether the plea agreements' ambiguity regarding the restitution amount should have been clarified by the district court before accepting the pleas.

Disposition

• The district court's restitution order was affirmed, requiring Defendants to pay a total of $10,628.41 in restitution to the victim (para 2).

Reasons

• Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, Michael E. Vigil, and M. Monica Zamora concurred in the opinion authored by Judge Sutin. The court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in issuing the restitution order. It found that Defendants' belief that they would be ordered to pay a maximum of $2500 each in restitution was not reasonable, given the plea agreements stated restitution was "to be determined by probation authorities" without specifying a limit. The court also noted that the estimated value of the stolen items discussed at the plea hearing ranged from $7735 to around $11,000, which did not support Defendants' expectation of a $2500 restitution cap. The court concluded that the plea agreement was not ambiguous regarding the restitution amount and that the district court's restitution order was justified based on evidence presented at the restitution hearing (paras 3-20).