Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Dec 10 2014, 6:29 am establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
CHRIS M. TEAGLE GREGORY F. ZOELLER Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JEFFREY REEL, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 05A02-1405-CR-337 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE BLACKFORD SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable J. Nicholas Barry, Judge Cause No. 05D01-1308-FD-287
December 10, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Jeffrey Reel appeals his three-year sentence for one count of Class D felony theft
and the trial court’s order directing him to pay $1,364.00 in restitution. We affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand.
Issues
The restated issues before us are:
I. whether the trial court properly ordered Reel to pay $1,364.00 in restitution related to a count to which he did not plead guilty; and
II. whether Reel’s sentence is inappropriate.
Facts
On or about July 29, 2013, Reel broke into two different cars, one of which was
owned by Jesse Jones and the other by John Norton, Sr. Reel stole a cell phone from
Jones’s car and a shirt from Norton’s car. The State charged Reel with two counts of Class
D felony theft and two counts of Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor
vehicle for these incidents. It also alleged that Reel was an habitual offender.
On February 25, 2014, Reel pled guilty to Count 1, theft, related to his theft of
Jones’s cell phone, with the State dismissing the remaining charges and habitual offender
allegation. There is no written plea agreement in the record. At the change of plea hearing,
the prosecutor stated, “Your Honor I would like to make note that, ah, restitution would be
for Count 1 and 3 but he’d only pleading to Count 1.” Tr. p. 5. Count 3 was the theft
2 charge alleging Reel had stolen Norton’s shirt. The trial court then directly asked Reel,
“And then restitution, whatever that amount may be, you are agreeing to . . . pay in Count
3 even though the State has agreed to dismiss it?” Id. at 5-6. Reel responded, “Yes sir.”
Id. at 6.
At the later sentencing hearing, the prosecutor stated, “I do have a restitution request
from the victim of, ah, John Norton, Sr. That amount is $1,364.00.” Id. at 21. There was
no evidence as to how this amount was calculated, nor any evidence of a restitution request
from Jones. Reel’s attorney originally objected to this restitution amount because he
thought it pertained to Jones, who by then was incarcerated, but withdrew the objection
when it was clarified that the restitution was to be paid to Norton. The trial court then
asked Reel’s attorney if he wanted “to be heard on the restitution amount?” Id. at 22.
Counsel responded, “No. I guess not.” Id. The trial court then sentenced Reel to a term
of three years executed and ordered him to pay $1,364.00 in restitution to Norton. Reel
now appeals.
Analysis
I. Restitution
We first address Reel’s claim that the restitution order is erroneous. A trial court
may order a defendant convicted of a crime to make restitution to the crime victim. Smith
v. State, 990 N.E.2d 517, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. A restitution award must
reflect actual losses incurred by the victim for actions attributable to the defendant’s
charged crimes. Id. Where property loss or damage is concerned, restitution shall be based
3 upon consideration of “the actual cost of repair (or replacement if repair is inappropriate) .
. . .” Ind. Code § 35-50-5-3(a)(1).
The amount of loss is a factual matter that must be determined by the presentation
of evidence. Smith, 990 N.E.2d at 520. We will reverse a trial court’s restitution order
only for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s order
is clearly against the logic and effect of the circumstances before the court or the
reasonable, probable, and actual inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id.
Reel first contends the trial court could not order him to pay restitution to Norton
pursuant to Count 3 of the information, which was dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
The general rule is that a trial court cannot order restitution for crimes to which a defendant
has not pled guilty, has not been convicted, or did not agree to repay as restitution. Polen
v. State, 578 N.E.2d 755, 756-57 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied. A defendant may
expressly agree to pay a restitution amount exceeding the amount related to a crime to
which he or she has pled guilty. See Kinkead v. State, 791 N.E.2d 243, 246 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003), trans. denied; see also In re Flatt-Moore, 959 N.E.2d 241, 244-45 (Ind. 2012)
(holding that a defendant may consent in a plea agreement to pay restitution in excess of
that provided by statute, but that it is unethical for a prosecutor to allow crime victim
complete control of plea negotiations with respect to restitution amount).
Here, there is no written plea agreement in the record. However, at the change of
plea hearing the prosecutor stated that part of the plea bargain included Reel’s agreement
to pay restitution under both Counts 1 and 3, despite Count 3 being dismissed. The trial
court then expressly and clearly asked Reel personally, and not through counsel, whether
4 he was agreeing to pay restitution under Count 3 even though it was being dismissed. Reel
responded, “Yes sir.” Tr. p. 6. We conclude that Reel’s express agreement to pay
restitution for his charged crime under Count 3, despite it being dismissed, allowed the trial
court to order restitution related to that count.
Reel also challenges the amount of the restitution award, noting there was no
submitted evidence that Norton suffered a loss of $1,364.00.1 The State responds that Reel
waived his ability to challenge the restitution amount by failing to make any challenge to
the prosecutor’s statement that Norton had requested restitution in that amount and failing
to present any evidence on the point.
This court and our supreme court addressed a similar issue in Iltzsch v. State, 972
N.E.2d 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), summarily aff’d in part and vacated in part, 981 N.E.2d
55 (Ind. 2013). There, the defendant was ordered to pay restitution of $711.95 in property
loss and damages based solely on a victim impact statement included in a presentence
investigation report. The defendant objected to paying any restitution because he was
maintaining his innocence, but otherwise did not object to the amount of restitution. On
appeal, the defendant challenged the amount of restitution. We held that the defendant had
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Dec 10 2014, 6:29 am establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
CHRIS M. TEAGLE GREGORY F. ZOELLER Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JEFFREY REEL, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 05A02-1405-CR-337 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE BLACKFORD SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable J. Nicholas Barry, Judge Cause No. 05D01-1308-FD-287
December 10, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Jeffrey Reel appeals his three-year sentence for one count of Class D felony theft
and the trial court’s order directing him to pay $1,364.00 in restitution. We affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand.
Issues
The restated issues before us are:
I. whether the trial court properly ordered Reel to pay $1,364.00 in restitution related to a count to which he did not plead guilty; and
II. whether Reel’s sentence is inappropriate.
Facts
On or about July 29, 2013, Reel broke into two different cars, one of which was
owned by Jesse Jones and the other by John Norton, Sr. Reel stole a cell phone from
Jones’s car and a shirt from Norton’s car. The State charged Reel with two counts of Class
D felony theft and two counts of Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor
vehicle for these incidents. It also alleged that Reel was an habitual offender.
On February 25, 2014, Reel pled guilty to Count 1, theft, related to his theft of
Jones’s cell phone, with the State dismissing the remaining charges and habitual offender
allegation. There is no written plea agreement in the record. At the change of plea hearing,
the prosecutor stated, “Your Honor I would like to make note that, ah, restitution would be
for Count 1 and 3 but he’d only pleading to Count 1.” Tr. p. 5. Count 3 was the theft
2 charge alleging Reel had stolen Norton’s shirt. The trial court then directly asked Reel,
“And then restitution, whatever that amount may be, you are agreeing to . . . pay in Count
3 even though the State has agreed to dismiss it?” Id. at 5-6. Reel responded, “Yes sir.”
Id. at 6.
At the later sentencing hearing, the prosecutor stated, “I do have a restitution request
from the victim of, ah, John Norton, Sr. That amount is $1,364.00.” Id. at 21. There was
no evidence as to how this amount was calculated, nor any evidence of a restitution request
from Jones. Reel’s attorney originally objected to this restitution amount because he
thought it pertained to Jones, who by then was incarcerated, but withdrew the objection
when it was clarified that the restitution was to be paid to Norton. The trial court then
asked Reel’s attorney if he wanted “to be heard on the restitution amount?” Id. at 22.
Counsel responded, “No. I guess not.” Id. The trial court then sentenced Reel to a term
of three years executed and ordered him to pay $1,364.00 in restitution to Norton. Reel
now appeals.
Analysis
I. Restitution
We first address Reel’s claim that the restitution order is erroneous. A trial court
may order a defendant convicted of a crime to make restitution to the crime victim. Smith
v. State, 990 N.E.2d 517, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. A restitution award must
reflect actual losses incurred by the victim for actions attributable to the defendant’s
charged crimes. Id. Where property loss or damage is concerned, restitution shall be based
3 upon consideration of “the actual cost of repair (or replacement if repair is inappropriate) .
. . .” Ind. Code § 35-50-5-3(a)(1).
The amount of loss is a factual matter that must be determined by the presentation
of evidence. Smith, 990 N.E.2d at 520. We will reverse a trial court’s restitution order
only for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s order
is clearly against the logic and effect of the circumstances before the court or the
reasonable, probable, and actual inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id.
Reel first contends the trial court could not order him to pay restitution to Norton
pursuant to Count 3 of the information, which was dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
The general rule is that a trial court cannot order restitution for crimes to which a defendant
has not pled guilty, has not been convicted, or did not agree to repay as restitution. Polen
v. State, 578 N.E.2d 755, 756-57 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied. A defendant may
expressly agree to pay a restitution amount exceeding the amount related to a crime to
which he or she has pled guilty. See Kinkead v. State, 791 N.E.2d 243, 246 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003), trans. denied; see also In re Flatt-Moore, 959 N.E.2d 241, 244-45 (Ind. 2012)
(holding that a defendant may consent in a plea agreement to pay restitution in excess of
that provided by statute, but that it is unethical for a prosecutor to allow crime victim
complete control of plea negotiations with respect to restitution amount).
Here, there is no written plea agreement in the record. However, at the change of
plea hearing the prosecutor stated that part of the plea bargain included Reel’s agreement
to pay restitution under both Counts 1 and 3, despite Count 3 being dismissed. The trial
court then expressly and clearly asked Reel personally, and not through counsel, whether
4 he was agreeing to pay restitution under Count 3 even though it was being dismissed. Reel
responded, “Yes sir.” Tr. p. 6. We conclude that Reel’s express agreement to pay
restitution for his charged crime under Count 3, despite it being dismissed, allowed the trial
court to order restitution related to that count.
Reel also challenges the amount of the restitution award, noting there was no
submitted evidence that Norton suffered a loss of $1,364.00.1 The State responds that Reel
waived his ability to challenge the restitution amount by failing to make any challenge to
the prosecutor’s statement that Norton had requested restitution in that amount and failing
to present any evidence on the point.
This court and our supreme court addressed a similar issue in Iltzsch v. State, 972
N.E.2d 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), summarily aff’d in part and vacated in part, 981 N.E.2d
55 (Ind. 2013). There, the defendant was ordered to pay restitution of $711.95 in property
loss and damages based solely on a victim impact statement included in a presentence
investigation report. The defendant objected to paying any restitution because he was
maintaining his innocence, but otherwise did not object to the amount of restitution. On
appeal, the defendant challenged the amount of restitution. We held that the defendant had
not waived that argument, despite his failure to make any challenge to the amount of
restitution before the trial court. Iltzsch, 972 N.E.2d at 412. We further concluded that the
victim impact statement in the presentence investigation report by itself was insufficient to
support the restitution amount because it was based on unsworn assertions, without any
1 Again, we note that this restitution award related solely to Reel’s alleged theft of Norton’s shirt.
5 supporting documentation or testimony, and without any explanation of how the property
damage occurred or how the valuations were arrived at. Id. at 413-14. We reversed the
restitution award and held the State was not entitled to another hearing to present additional
evidence on restitution. Id. at 415.
Our supreme court granted transfer. It summarily affirmed our holdings that the
defendant had not waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
restitution and that there was in fact insufficient evidence to support it. Iltzsch, 981 N.E.2d
at 56-57. However, it disagreed with our holding that the State was precluded from
presenting additional evidence on restitution. Id. Instead, it remanded the case to the trial
court “with instructions to conduct a new restitution hearing at which the State will be
permitted to present, and Iltzsch will be allowed to confront, any additional evidence
supporting the victim’s property loss.” Id. at 57.
Here, as in Iltzsch, Reel is not precluded on appeal from challenging the amount of
the restitution award, despite his failure to challenge the amount before the trial court.
Also, there clearly is insufficient evidence to support restitution in the amount of $1,364.00.
Indeed, there is even less evidence than was present in Iltzsch. Instead of a formal victim
impact statement that at least gave some explanation of the requested restitution amount,
there simply was a statement by the prosecutor that Norton had requested $1,364.00 in
restitution, with no explanation of how that amount related to Reel’s theft of Norton’s shirt.
Pursuant to both Iltzsch opinions, we reverse the restitution award and remand to give the
State an opportunity for a new hearing to address the amount of restitution, which must be
supported by admissible evidence from the State that is subject to confrontation by Reel.
6 II. Sentence
Reel also contends that his three-year sentence is inappropriate under Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of his character and the nature of the offense. Although Rule
7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision,
we still must give due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867,
873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial
court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden
of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.
The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the outliers,
and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement
of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.”
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—
the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of
counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is
inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,
the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case. Id.
at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence under Rule 7(B), we may
consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial court in sentencing the
defendant, including whether a portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State,
926 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind. 2010).
Regarding the nature of the offense, Reel broke into Jones’s car and stole Jones’s
cell phone. We would agree there is nothing especially heinous about this offense.
7 However, Reel’s character warrants imposition of the maximum sentence for a
Class D felony. Reel turned eighteen in 2001. Since that time, he has accumulated
convictions for Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license, Class C felony
robbery, Class D felony escape, Class C felony possession of methamphetamine, and Class
C misdemeanor illegal possession of an alcoholic beverage. Reel was on probation for the
methamphetamine conviction at the time of this offense. He also has a child for whom he
has been ordered to pay support, but he does not pay any support and was making no effort
to find employment at the time of this offense. In sum, Reel has displayed repeated
disregard of the law and his multiple previous stints of incarceration did nothing to dissuade
him from committing the current offense. At some point, despite the apparently minor
nature of a crime, there is nothing inappropriate in imposing the maximum penalty upon a
person who has proven to be unable to obey the law for any significant period of time.
Additionally, although Reel notes that he pled guilty, we do not believe that it
warrants a lesser sentence. In exchange for Reel’s guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss
three other pending charges, as well as an habitual offender allegation. When a defendant
significantly benefits from a plea agreement, there is no requirement that it be considered
a positive reflection on character for sentencing purposes. See Page v. State, 878 N.E.2d
404, 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Such is the case here. Reel’s sentence is not
inappropriate.
8 Conclusion
The restitution order of $1,364.00 is not supported by the evidence. We reverse that
order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We find Reel’s
sentence of three years not to be inappropriate and affirm it.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BRADFORD, J., and BROWN, J., concur.