Can defendants appeal restitution orders during plea-in-abeyance periods? State v. Becker Explained

In State v. Becker, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defendants can appeal restitution orders entered during the plea-in-abeyance period, ultimately dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and establishing important procedural limitations for criminal defendants.

Background and Facts
Darron Becker was charged with felony aggravated assault for attacking his neighbor with a shovel handle during an argument about loose dogs. He entered a plea-in-abeyance agreement for the reduced charge of misdemeanor attempted aggravated assault. The agreement required Becker to pay restitution, with the amount reserved for later determination. The State subsequently sought $663.01 in restitution for eyeglasses and an eye exam that the Utah Office for Victims of Crime had paid to the neighbor. Despite Becker’s objections to insufficient documentation—arguing that the claim was based only on handwritten notes—the district court ordered the full restitution amount.

Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the court had appellate jurisdiction to review a restitution order entered during the plea-in-abeyance period before any final conviction or dismissal. This jurisdictional question required interpretation of both the plea-in-abeyance statutes and the Crime Victims Restitution Act.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
Following the recent decision in State v. Mooers, the court held that no final judgment exists during the plea-in-abeyance period, precluding appellate jurisdiction. The court applied horizontal stare decisis, noting that Mooers had determined that restitution orders under the Crime Victims Restitution Act, even when enforceable as civil judgments, do not constitute final appealable orders when entered as conditions of plea-in-abeyance agreements.

Practice Implications
This decision significantly limits defendants’ ability to challenge restitution orders during plea-in-abeyance periods through direct appeal. Practitioners must instead pursue interlocutory review under Rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure or seek extraordinary relief under Rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. However, both alternatives are discretionary and require demonstrating that review is justified or that the order will escape review entirely without immediate intervention.