State v. Wigham

• Decision Date: 22 December 2021
• Docket Number: A20-0857
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Darrell James WIGHAM, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

967 N.W.2d 657

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Darrell James WIGHAM, Appellant.

A20-0857

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: December 22, 2021

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Adam Lozeau, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Kristen Nelsen, Mower County Attorney, Austin Minnesota; and Scott A. Hersey, Special Assistant Mower County Attorney, Austin, Minnesota, for respondent.

OPINION

THISSEN, Justice.

A district court is required to consider the defendant's income, resources, and obligations when it is determining whether to award restitution and the amount of restitution. See Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(2) (2020). In this case, neither the parties nor the county probation office provided meaningful information to the district court about appellant Darrell Wigham's income, resources, and obligations. After a restitution hearing that focused on the timeliness of the restitution request and the amounts of the victims’ losses, the district court ordered Wigham to pay a total of $87,500 in restitution to two victims. The record does not reflect that the district court considered Wigham's ability to pay.¹

We hold that a district court must expressly state, either orally or in writing, that it has considered a defendant's income, resources, and obligations when ordering restitution, and that the record must include sufficient evidence about the defendant's income, resources, and obligations to allow a district court to consider the defendant's ability to pay the amount of restitution ordered. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the district court for further proceedings on restitution.

FACTS

A fire destroyed the home of the victim homeowner in this case. Following an investigation into the fire's origins, Wigham was charged with several crimes, including arson. Wigham entered an Alford plea² to first-degree arson, and the Mower County District Court dismissed all remaining related counts. Before sentencing, a presentence investigation report (PSI) was completed. The PSI summarized Wigham's incarceration and probation history, recommended the presumptive 88-month sentence, and recorded the restitution requested as of the date of filing. But the PSI included neither any information on Wigham's income, resources, or obligations, nor any discussion of his ability to pay restitution.

Both the homeowner and his insurer submitted affidavits of restitution. The insurance company's affidavit requested $71,500 in restitution for payments made to the homeowner. Those payments included $65,000 for the value of the lost residence and $6,500 for lost rent. The homeowner's affidavit lacked clarity and was confusing. It itemized $71,600 in losses. The homeowner claimed lost rent for three years totaling $21,600; $35,000 for the value of the destroyed home not covered by insurance; and $15,000 to cover removal and cleanup costs. The homeowner's affidavit also stated that he paid a $1,000 insurance deductible and noted an unspecified "additional loss" of $16,000 not covered by insurance. It is not clear if or how those amounts were included in his requested $71,600 in restitution.

On April 25, 2019, the district court sentenced Wigham to 88 months in prison. The State recognized a possible duplication error in the restitution amounts requested in the affidavits submitted by the insurance company and the homeowner. The prosecutor stated: "The way the affidavits are currently may be too much requested, so we will confirm that." Wigham's lawyer agreed: "As for the restitution, I also have some concerns, and even some confusion with it ...." Accordingly, the district court deferred ruling on restitution, allowing 60 days for clarification of the restitution requests. There was no mention of Wigham's income, resources, or obligations at the sentencing hearing.

On September 17, more than 60 days after the sentencing hearing, the State filed a letter with the district court requesting $87,500 in restitution: $16,000 (reflecting the "additional loss, not covered by insurance") from the homeowner's affidavit and the original request of $71,500 from the insurance company's affidavit. The next day, the court issued a criminal restitution order for $87,500—the full amount requested by the State. The restitution order included spaces for the court to either fill in and indicate the monthly payments that Wigham must make or, alternatively, to name the person delegated to develop a restitution payment schedule. Both spaces were left blank. The restitution order made no mention of Wigham's ability to pay restitution.

Wigham timely filed a demand for a restitution hearing and an affidavit challenging the restitution order pursuant to section 611.045, subdivision 3. Wigham asserted that the district court lacked authority to order any restitution because the State had failed to timely file its updated restitution request within the 60-day deadline set by the court and that the homeowner's claim for $16,000 in restitution was not supported by sufficient documentation. Wigham's affidavit made no mention of his income, resources, or obligations.

The district court held a restitution hearing over parts of three separate days. The legal dispute in the hearing focused primarily on whether the State's restitution request was timely. The court made no mention, and neither the State nor Wigham offered evidence, of Wigham's income, resources, or obligations.

A representative of the insurance company verified the amounts in the affidavit that the insurer had previously filed. The representative testified that the insurance company had reimbursed the homeowner $71,500—$65,000 for the value of the lost home and $6,500 for lost rent.

The homeowner also testified at the restitution hearing, reciting losses that totaled $46,300. He clarified that his lost rent not covered by insurance was $1,300, rather than the $21,600 listed in his affidavit. He asserted that $15,000 in cleanup expenses had not been covered by insurance. He further stated that, although he was claiming a property value loss of $35,000 (the portion not covered by insurance), he still owned the lot and was paying taxes on it. He said that he valued the lot at zero because no one wanted it, stating, "I can't give it away." Ultimately, the homeowner limited his request for restitution to $16,000. In its closing argument, the State stated that the homeowner "understands Mr. Wigham is in prison" and clarified that it was merely asking that "the Order previously made by this Court and entered remain." Wigham did not contest the amount of restitution in that order.

The district court subsequently issued a restitution order for the same $87,500 amount it had originally ordered. Neither the order nor the accompanying memorandum mentioned Wigham's income, resources, or obligations. The order neither included a payment structure nor scheduled nor directed anyone else to prepare a payment structure or schedule. In the accompanying memorandum, the court limited its discussion to the issue of whether the State's request for restitution was timely. In its discussion of that issue, the court stated:

In balancing the interests of Defendant and the victims, the Court sees no unfair prejudice to Defendant in ordering restitution at this time in the total amount of $87,500, because it is considerably less than the total amount of $143,100 [the incorrect amount reflected in the original restitution affidavits] which the Court could have ordered at sentencing.

(Emphasis added.) The court rejected Wigham's timeliness challenge because Wigham benefited from the delay, which allowed the parties to clear up the duplication in the original restitution requests.

Wigham appealed on several grounds, including that the district court failed to consider his ability to pay when it ordered restitution. See State v. Wigham , No. A20-0857, 2021 WL 416413, at *3 (Minn. App. Feb. 8, 2021). The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that "the record reveals that the district court considered Wigham's ability to pay." Id. at *4. The court of appeals reasoned:

First, the district court did not order Wigham to pay the full $143,100 that was originally requested by the state. Second, the district court only ordered Wigham to pay the requested $16,000 to the homeowner, instead of requiring Wigham to fully compensate the homeowner for all the losses that he testified to. Third, the district court acknowledged that it "balance[ed] the interests of [Wigham] and the victims" in ordering restitution.

Id.

Wigham petitioned our court, and we granted review, on the sole issue of whether the district court fulfilled its statutory obligation to consider the defendant's ability to pay restitution under section 611A.045.

ANALYSIS

We generally review a restitution order for an abuse of the district court's "broad discretion." State v. Andersen , 871 N.W.2d 910, 913 (Minn. 2015). That discretion, however, is constrained by the statutory requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 611A.045 (2020). The question before us is whether the court fulfilled its statutory obligation to consider Wigham's ability to pay when it ordered Wigham to pay $87,500 in restitution.³ That inquiry requires us to analyze what the statute requires in its mandate that a court "shall consider ... the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant." Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1. That is a question of law and statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Andersen , 871 N.W.2d at 913 (stating that questions concerning the authority of the court to order restitution are questions of law subject to de novo review).

We begin our analysis by reviewing the statutory procedure the Legislature has mandated that district courts must follow when ordering restitution. First, subdivision 1, provides: "The court, in determining whether to order...