Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 14 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-94-146,09-94-146 |
| Citation | 915 S.W.2d 246 |
| Parties | Terry Garland CARROLL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. CR. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Tom Moran, Houston, for appellant.
Michael Little, District Attorney, Liberty, Jerry E. Andress, Assistant District Attorney, Liberty, for state.
Before WALKER, C.J., and BURGESS and STOVER, JJ.
A jury convicted Terry Garland Carroll of robbery. The court assessed punishment at ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division and a $1,000 fine. The court placed Carroll on probation for the ten years and included, among other conditions, that Carroll serve six months and pay $1,500 in restitution to the victim. Carroll's sole complaint is the $1,500 restitution requirement.
Carroll argues the trial court abused its discretion in assessing the restitution, the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to sustain the restitution, the restitution order is not "just" and therefore violates his U.S. Constitutional right of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and deprives him of due course of law as guaranteed by TEX. CONST. art. I §§ 13, 19.
The facts of the underlying offense are not in question in this appeal. Carroll entered a convenience store and demanded the clerk give him money. The clerk testified Carroll threatened her with death or serious bodily injury, she was frightened and afraid and believed she might be killed or seriously injured. She did not provide testimony about any personal monetary loss, medical bills or other expenses related to the robbery. At the sentencing hearing, the court stated: "Now, as a condition of probation, however, I want you--you will pay the $1,000 fine, and I am going to order that you pay $1,500 restitution to [the victim] unless she requires more, for counseling or treatment or anything she might need." This was reduced to writing as condition (m) of the court's probation order and stated, in pertinent part: "[P]ay restitution in the amount of $1,500.00 for the use and benefit of [the victim]...."
TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 42.12, § 11(a) (Vernon 1979 & Supp.1993) allows a court to order a defendant to make, as a condition of probation, "restitution or reparation in any sum that the court shall determine." 1 Whether to order any restitution is within the discretion of the trial court. Cartwright v. State, 605 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). Thus, the test for determining whether an order of restitution should be overturned is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion. Wooley v. State, 629 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.App.--Austin 1982, pet. ref'd).
The State recognizes there must be a factual basis in the record supporting the amount of restitution ordered, Martin v. State, 874 S.W.2d 674, 676 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); LaFleur v. State, 848 S.W.2d 266, 270 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1993, no pet.) but argues it is only a "sufficient evidence" test and does not impose a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. State
...to other parties not named in the indictment. The decision to order restitution is within the discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State, 915 S.W.2d 246, 247 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1996, no pet.) (citing Cartwright v. State, 605 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)). However, due process r......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...disfigurement, loss of consortium, etc. should be included as restitution or reparation under article 42.12.” [ Carroll v. State , 915 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.App.— Beaumont 1996).] Court review of restitution orders is under an abuse of discretion standard. [ Cartwright v. State , 605 S.W.2d 287, ......
-
Table of cases
...v. State , 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998), §11:123 Carrillo v. State , 2 S.W.3d 275 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), §16:140 Carroll v. State , 915 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996), §14:92 Carter v. State , 398 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Crim.App. 1966), §16:14 Carter v. State , Not Reported in S.W.3d, 20......
-
Punishment Phase
...pet. ref’d ). Non-economic damages such as mental anguish, disfigurement, etc . should not be included as restitution. Carroll v. State, 915 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996, no pet .). The court can require that the defendant pay interest on the restitution amount as a condition of prob......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...disigurement, loss of consortium, etc. should be included as restitution or reparation under article 42.12.” [ Carroll v. State , 915 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996).] Court review of restitution orders is under an abuse of discretion standard. [ Cartwright v. State , 605 S.W.2d 287, 28......