Cases | State v. Nordahl, 680 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 2004 | 2018
The defendant secured contracts with farmers to supply hay and was unable to produce hay due to unavailability of land and poor weather conditions. The defendant was charged with theft of property by deception, entered a plea agreement that reduced the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor, and agreed to pay restitution pursuant to the plea. The defendant unsuccessfully attempted to sell assets in order to satisfy the restitution obligation and the trial court revoked probation and imposed a one-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation without an inquiry as to the reason for failure to pay and without investigating other alternatives. The supreme court affirmed the order revoking probation and imposing sentence of one year. The defendant agreed to the restitution amount and due date in the plea agreement, and was presumed to have had knowledge of his assets and obligations at the time he entered into the agreement. Allowing the defendant to plead indigency would cause a windfall because the severity of his offense was lessened based on his agreement to quickly repay victims