Utah Court of Appeals
Must Utah trial courts provide restitution hearings when defendants object? State v. Breeze Explained
Summary
Defendant was convicted of criminal nonsupport for failing to pay $130 monthly child support for over a year. At sentencing, defendant and his counsel objected to the restitution amount and requested a hearing with victim testimony, but the trial court imposed $33,792.25 in restitution without allowing the requested hearing.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In State v. Breeze, defendant was obligated to pay $130 per month in child support pursuant to a divorce decree. Between December 1998 and December 1999, he paid no child support to his ex-wife. He was subsequently charged with and pleaded guilty to criminal nonsupport, a third-degree felony. At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s attorney requested that the court withhold setting restitution until the ex-wife could testify about the appropriate amount. The trial court rejected this request, stating it was “not interested” in what the ex-wife had to say and immediately ordered $33,792.25 in restitution without a hearing.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trial court erred by imposing restitution without providing a hearing when defendant objected to the amount at sentencing. This required interpretation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201(4)(e), which governs restitution procedures.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals found the statute’s language unambiguous: “If the defendant objects to the imposition, amount, or distribution of the restitution, the court shall at the time of sentencing allow the defendant a full hearing on the issue.” Since both defendant and his counsel objected at sentencing, the court held that a full hearing was mandatory. The court rejected the State’s argument that the victim’s testimony was irrelevant, noting that victims’ testimony regarding damages is relevant under the statute’s requirement to “consider all relevant facts.” The court distinguished this criminal restitution proceeding from civil child support collection, emphasizing that trial courts have discretion in criminal restitution orders but not in civil support judgments.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that timing is crucial for restitution objections—defendants must object at or before sentencing to preserve their right to a hearing. The court’s emphasis on “full hearing” requirements also means practitioners should prepare for comprehensive evidentiary presentations, including victim testimony and evidence of actual damages. Defense attorneys should not assume victim testimony will be excluded, as it may be relevant to the court’s discretionary restitution determination.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Breeze
Citation
2001 UT App 200
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20000670-CA
Date Decided
June 28, 2001
Outcome
Remanded
Holding
The trial court erred by failing to provide a full restitution hearing when defendant objected to the restitution order at sentencing, as required by Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201(4)(e).
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for restitution orders; correctness for questions of law
Practice Tip
Always make restitution objections at or before sentencing to preserve the right to a full hearing, as post-sentencing requests are untimely under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201(4)(e).
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.