Can a trial court apply an older version of the restitution act to a later request? State v. Devore Explained

In State v. Devore, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court plainly erred by applying the 2017 version of the Crime Victims Restitution Act to a 2023 restitution request, highlighting the complexity of determining which version of a statute applies when multiple versions could govern different aspects of a case.

Background and Facts

Christopher Earl Devore unlawfully entered a home and punched a man he found engaging in sexual intercourse with Devore’s on-again, off-again girlfriend. Devore pled guilty to burglary in February 2020 and was sentenced in July 2020 to jail time and probation. Initially, the court ordered Devore to pay $360.60 in restitution for the victim’s medical consultation and nasal endoscopy. However, in November 2023—more than three years after sentencing but while Devore was still on probation—the Utah Office of Victims of Crime requested additional restitution of nearly $30,000 for the victim’s nasal reconstruction surgery.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was which version of the Crime Victims Restitution Act applied to the late restitution request. Under the 2017 Act (in effect when Devore was sentenced), restitution requests were to be submitted within one year of sentencing, but courts could extend this deadline through the probation period upon finding good cause. Under the 2023 Act (in effect when the request was made), courts had to enter restitution orders within three years of sentencing for felony convictions, making UOVC’s request untimely. Devore also challenged the sufficiency of evidence establishing proximate cause between his punch and the victim’s nasal injuries.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found no plain error in the district court’s application of the 2017 Act. The court noted that Utah appellate precedent was inconsistent regarding which event—the criminal act, charging, plea entry, or sentencing—is regulated by the Restitution Act. Given this unsettled state of the law, it would not have been obvious to the district court that the 2023 Act should apply. The court also rejected Devore’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding that counsel could reasonably have concluded it would be futile to argue for application of the 2023 Act given existing precedent. Finally, the court determined that sufficient evidence supported the district court’s finding of proximate cause, noting that the victim’s declarations and medical evidence established both but-for causation and foreseeability of harm.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the importance of preserving statutory interpretation arguments at the trial court level, particularly when the applicable law is unsettled. Practitioners should be aware that Utah’s appellate courts have applied different versions of the Restitution Act depending on various triggering events, and this inconsistency may provide grounds for argument in future cases. The decision also reinforces that UOVC representatives can provide sufficient evidence of medical necessity for restitution purposes without requiring direct testimony from medical providers, following the Utah Supreme Court’s guidance in State v. Blake.