Ex parte Fletcher
Citation | 849 So.2d 900 |
Parties | Ex parte Earnestine FLETCHER. (In re Earnestine Fletcher v. State). |
Decision Date | 30 March 2001 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
R. Scott Anderson, Decatur, for petitioner.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Sandra J. Stewart, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
Earnestine Fletcher was charged with the theft of over $200,000 from the City of Decatur ("the City"), for which she had been formerly employed as a clerk. She pleaded guilty to theft of property in the first degree, a violation of § 13A-8-3(a), Ala.Code 1975.1 The trial court sentenced Fletcher to 15 years in the penitentiary; it split the sentence, ordering her to serve 48 hours in the county jail, followed by 15 years on probation. In addition, the court ordered her to pay court costs, to pay $50 to the Victims Compensation Fund, and to pay $200,000 in restitution to the City. The court ordered Fletcher to pay the $200,000, plus 12% interest, amortized over 15 years, resulting in a total of $432,061 to be repaid by Fletcher in monthly payments of $2,400.34.
Fletcher moved the trial court to reconsider its restitution order. She argued that under the terms of her plea bargain, she had agreed to pay a total of $200,000 in restitution in monthly payments of $1,112 for 15 years; that she should be required to compensate the City only for the amount of its actual loss; and that the restitution ordered should be based on her ability to pay. The trial court denied Fletcher's motion. She appealed from the restitution order.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, on August 20, 1999, affirmed the restitution order, without an opinion. Fletcher v. State (No. CR-97-1059), 778 So.2d 869 (Ala. Crim.App.1999) (table). We granted certiorari review to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the trial court had properly ordered Fletcher to pay 12% interest on the $200,000 in restitution. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals in part, reverse it in part, and remand.
Before Fletcher pleaded guilty, she and her attorney had negotiated with the State what is known as a "blind" plea agreement. In essence, Fletcher and the State agreed that she would pay $200,000 in restitution over a period of 15 years, and the State agreed that it would make no recommendation as to her sentence. Her attorney provided the trial court with a document entitled "Restitution Payment Plan for Earnestine Fletcher"; that document showed monthly payments of $1,112 that Fletcher proposed to make from March 1998 through January 2013, plus one final payment in February 2013 of $952, for a total of $200,000. At the hearing on her plea agreement and sentencing, the trial court and the attorneys discussed the plea agreement:
Fletcher and her attorney signed an "Explanation of Rights and Plea of Guilty" form, commonly known as an Ireland form,2 in which she agreed to plead guilty to first-degree theft of property, a Class B felony. In signing that form, Fletcher acknowledged that she was aware of her rights and agreed to waive them.
Fletcher testified that she had worked for the City as a clerk at the Decatur City Hall until January 1997 and that one of her job duties had been to receive money that was paid to the City for various reasons. She further testified that during the last several years of her employment with the City, she took an amount of money in excess of $1,000 that she had received on behalf of the City and that she used that money for her own benefit. In addition, she testified that she was 55 years old and was employed full-time by a local merchant. After Fletcher and her attorney spoke in support of her request for probation, the trial court stated:
At some point after the hearing, the trial court apparently asked Fletcher's attorney to recalculate a 15-year restitution plan that included 12% interest on $200,000. By that plan, Fletcher would need to make monthly payments of $2,400.34 for 15 years. Fletcher then filed what she called a "motion to reconsider," in which she asked the trial court "to reconsider its sentencing order ... regarding the payment of restitution." She stated, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grace v. State
...restitution order in this appeal.1 See Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R.App. P.; Rule 26.11(a), Ala. R.Crim. P. See, generally, Ex parte Fletcher, 849 So.2d 900, 906-07 (Ala.2001) (defendant appealed from denial of motion to reconsider restitution order, which was not entered until after Grace contends......
-
Theodorou v. State ).
...the circuit court may not order him to pay restitution above the actual monetary value of the stolen equipment. Contra Ex parte Fletcher, 849 So.2d 900, 909 (Ala.2001) (holding that the circuit court may, as part of its restitution order, require the defendant to pay interest). Consequently......
-
Fitzgerald v. State
...has explained that " ‘special damages’ [are those] that ‘flow naturally, but not necessarily, from the wrongful act.’ " Ex parte Fletcher, 849 So. 2d 900, 908 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Crommelin v. Montgomery Indep. Telecasters, Inc., 280 Ala. 391, 194 So. 2d 548, 551 (1967) ).Under Alabama's re......
-
Fletcher v. State
...Court's judgment affirming the amount of restitution Earnestine Fletcher was ordered to pay and the method of payment. See Ex parte Fletcher, 849 So.2d 900 (Ala.2001). That Court ordered this Court to remand the cause to the trial court with instructions that that court "hold any further pr......
-
Representing victims and witnesses
...investigation and litigation over damages. Calculate the loss, including all consequential damages and interest. [ See Ex parte Fletcher, 849 So.2d 900, 907 (Ala. 2001) (surveying state and federal jurisdictions and finding that most do allow prejudgment interest in restitution orders); see......