RESTITUTION HEARING BRIEF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Statement of the Case
3. Applicable Restitution Statute
4. Victim Information and Claimed Losses
5. Disputed Restitution Amount
6. Defense Arguments Against Claimed Restitution
7. Proposed Alternative Restitution
8. Defendant's Ability to Pay
9. Proposed Payment Plan
10. Legal Authority and Case Law
11. Certificate of Service

Caption

IN THE [________________________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR [________________________________] COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

Statement of the Case

On [__/__/____], the Defendant, [DEFENDANT FULL NAME], was convicted of [CHARGE(S)] in violation of Utah Code Ann. § [________________________________]. The conviction arose from events occurring on or about [__/__/____] in [COUNTY NAME] County, Utah.

The Defendant entered a plea of [GUILTY / NO CONTEST / WAS FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL] on [__/__/____]. The State has requested restitution in the amount of $[________________________________]. The Defendant objects to the amount and requests a full hearing under Utah Code Ann. § 77-38b-205(4).

Applicable Restitution Statute

Utah's Crime Victims Restitution Act (Utah Code Ann. § 77-38b-101 et seq.) governs restitution:

• Mandatory Restitution: When a defendant is convicted of criminal activity resulting in pecuniary damages, the court shall order restitution to victims.
• Complete vs. Court-Ordered Restitution: The court must determine both "complete restitution" (total victim losses) and "court-ordered restitution" (what the defendant actually pays).
• Right to Full Hearing: If the defendant objects to the imposition, amount, or distribution of restitution, the court shall allow the defendant a full hearing.
• Financial Declaration: Under § 77-38b-204, the defendant must complete a financial declaration before sentencing.
• Factors Considered: Under § 77-38b-205(5)(c), the court considers:
• Cost of damage or loss from the offense
• Financial resources of the defendant
• Burden payment will impose on the defendant
• Ability to pay on an installment basis
• Rehabilitative effect of payment
• Other circumstances making restitution inappropriate
• Time Limit: The prosecution must submit restitution requests within one year after sentencing if not submitted at sentencing.

Victim Information and Claimed Losses

Victim 1: [________________________________]

Disputed Restitution Amount

The Defendant disputes the claimed restitution for the following reasons:

☐ The claimed losses are not pecuniary damages resulting from the criminal activity
☐ The losses are not causally connected to the convicted offense
☐ Insufficient documentation supports the claimed amount
☐ The victim has been compensated by insurance or other sources
☐ The prosecution failed to submit the restitution request within one year
☐ Other: [________________________________]

Defendant's Position on Restitution Amount: $[________________________________]

Defense Arguments Against Claimed Restitution

A. Pecuniary Damages Limitation

[________________________________]

B. Causal Connection to Convicted Offense

[________________________________]

C. Documentation Deficiencies

[________________________________]

D. Insurance and Third-Party Offsets

[________________________________]

Proposed Alternative Restitution

Proposed Total Restitution: $[________________________________]

Defendant's Ability to Pay

Current Employment: [________________________________]
Monthly Gross Income: $[________________________________]
Monthly Net Income: $[________________________________]

Monthly Obligations:

Monthly Disposable Income: $[________________________________]

Proposed Payment Plan

• Total Restitution Amount: $[________________________________]
• Initial Payment (if any): $[________________________________]
• Monthly Payment Amount: $[________________________________]
• Payment Start Date: [__/__/____]
• Estimated Completion Date: [__/__/____]

Legal Authority and Case Law

1. Utah Code Ann. § 77-38b-205 -- Mandatory restitution for pecuniary damages; right to full hearing on objection; six-factor analysis.

2. State v. Dominguez, 992 P.2d 995 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) -- Insurance companies qualify as "victims" entitled to restitution.

3. State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53, 214 P.3d 104 -- The court must make specific findings distinguishing between complete restitution and court-ordered restitution.

4. State v. Weeks, 2002 UT 98, 61 P.3d 1000 -- Restitution must be supported by evidence and directly tied to the criminal conduct.

5. Utah Admin. Code R671-403-6 -- Board of Pardons and Parole restitution hearing procedures; preponderance of evidence standard.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of this Restitution Hearing Brief was served upon:

[PROSECUTING ATTORNEY NAME]
[COUNTY] County Attorney's Office
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[CITY], Utah [ZIP CODE]

☐ Personal Delivery
☐ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
☐ Electronic Filing / Service

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], Attorney for Defendant
[UTAH BAR NUMBER]
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[CITY], Utah [ZIP CODE]
[PHONE NUMBER]
[EMAIL ADDRESS]

UTAH STATE NOTES

• Mandatory Restitution: Utah mandates restitution when criminal activity results in pecuniary damages.
• Dual Determination: The court must determine both "complete restitution" (total loss) and "court-ordered restitution" (what the defendant pays).
• Financial Declaration Required: The defendant must complete a Financial Declaration for Restitution under § 77-38b-204.
• Full Hearing Right: The defendant has the right to a full evidentiary hearing if objecting to restitution.
• One-Year Deadline: The prosecution must submit restitution requests within one year after sentencing.
• Board of Pardons: If restitution is not determined within one year, the Board of Pardons and Parole may determine it for incarcerated defendants.
• Civil Judgment Enforcement: Restitution orders are enforceable as legal judgments under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Preponderance Standard: The burden of proving losses is by a preponderance of the evidence.