Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA man who pleaded guilty to one count of theft for stealing grain, but admitted to stealing from the victim on other occasions, had his restitution amount reduced from nearly $150,000 to just around $28,000.
Logan M. Dull pleaded guilty to one count of Class D felony theft and agreed to pay restitution. During the sentencing and restitution hearings, he admitted he had stolen grain from the property of Kenny Besears on two other occasions and agreed to pay restitution for those occasions within the time period of his indictment. The $145,633.40 in restitution the trial court imposed included the grain that Dull had sole up to one year prior to the dates contained in the indictment.
“Absent an agreement to pay restitution, a defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution for an act that did not result in a conviction. Because the trial court ordered restitution for amounts that related to dates outside Dull’s indictment for which he did not plead guilty and for which he did not agree to pay, we reverse the trial court’s order of restitution,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote.
“Because the trial court could only order Dull to pay restitution for the theft of grain between the summer and fall of 2013 as set forth in the indictment and because Dull agreed that his restitution for that time period would be $26,110.98, plus the $1,667.20 check dated September 16, 2013, there is no need for the trial court to hold a new restitution hearing. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to vacate its prior restitution order and to enter a new restitution order for the amount of $27,778.18, the amount that Dull agreed was proper for restitution.”
The case is Logan M. Dull v. State of Indiana, 68A04-1502-CR-75.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.