State v. Gonzales

                                                                           FILED
                                                                   IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                     OCTOBER 26, 2023
                                                                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA


                   IN THE SUPREME COURT
                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                

State of North Dakota,                               Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Manuel Gonzales,                                  Defendant and Appellant



                                No. 20230129

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.

REVERSED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Chase R. Lingle, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and
appellee.

Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
                               State v. Gonzales
                                 No. 20230129

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Manuel Gonzales appeals a district court order and amended judgment
claiming the restitution ordered by the district court was not directly related
to the crime to which he pleaded guilty. We reverse.

[¶2] Gonzales pleaded guilty to unlawful use of personal identifying
information. The district court ordered Gonzales to make restitution of $556.00
for the value of property stolen from the victim’s vehicle, which included
$500.00 cash in a wallet, $45.00 to replace the wallet, and $11.00 to replace an
ATM card and driver's license.

[¶3] “When reviewing a restitution order, we look to whether the district court
acted within the limits set by statute, which is a standard similar to our abuse
of discretion standard.” State v. Harstad, 

, 

.
“A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental
process leading to a reasonable determination, or if it misinterprets or
misapplies the law.” 

[¶4] “In determining the amount of restitution, the court shall take into
account the reasonable damages sustained by the victim or victims of the
criminal offense, which damages are limited to those directly related to the
criminal offense and expenses actually sustained as a direct result of the
defendant’s criminal action.” N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(4); see State v. Pippin, 

 (N.D. 1993) (restitution requires “an immediate and intimate
causal connection between the criminal conduct and the damages or expenses
for which restitution is ordered”); State v. Carson, 

, 

 (restitution damages are limited to damages “directly related to the
criminal offense and expenses actually incurred as a direct result of the
defendant’s criminal action”); Harstad, 

 (there is no
“immediate causal connection between unrecovered” property from a car and a
conviction of possession of a stolen vehicle).


                                         1
[¶5] Here, the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion by
ordering restitution for the victim’s loss from theft when Gonzales pleaded
guilty to unauthorized use of personal identifying information. No evidence at
the restitution hearing supported, and no part of restitution ordered by the
court, was directly related to Gonzales’ conviction for unauthorized use of
personal identifying information. We reverse the order and amended
judgment.

[¶6] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr




                                      2