Can a restitution order be void for lack of a written amount? State v. Speed Explained

In State v. Speed, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a restitution order could be deemed void when the original written judgment failed to include the specific amount ordered at sentencing. This case highlights important considerations for practitioners handling restitution matters in criminal appeals.

Background and Facts

Speed pleaded guilty to theft by deception and was sentenced to probation with conditions including restitution. During the sentencing hearing, the court explicitly ordered Speed to “pay restitution in the amount of $126,547.” However, the original written judgment listed “Pay Restitution” as a probation condition without specifying the dollar amount. The court later amended the judgment to include the $126,547 figure. Speed subsequently filed a rule 60(b)(4) motion claiming the restitution order was void because no specific amount was ordered within the statutory one-year timeframe.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the restitution order was void for lack of jurisdiction under Utah Code section 77-38a-302, which required court-ordered restitution to be determined within one year of sentencing, and (2) whether Speed was denied due process regarding notice and opportunity to be heard on the restitution amount.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found that the sentencing judge had clearly ordered a specific restitution amount during the sentencing hearing, distinguishing this case from State v. Poole where no specific amount was ordered within the statutory timeframe. The omission of the amount from the original written judgment constituted clerical error under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(b), which permits correction of oversight or omission at any time. The court also rejected Speed’s due process challenge, finding he had adequate notice of the restitution amount through the presentence investigation report and opportunity to be heard at sentencing.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring written judgments accurately reflect oral pronouncements at sentencing. Courts should include specific restitution amounts in written orders to avoid later challenges. For appellate practitioners, the case demonstrates the limited scope of review available through rule 60(b)(4) motions and reinforces that such motions cannot serve as substitutes for timely direct appeals from restitution orders.