Cases | State v. Thorstad, 261 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1978 | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to breaking into a vehicle and theft. The defendant was placed on probation and agreed to pay restitution pursuant the plea agreement. The defendant’s probation was revoked and he received a two year incarceration sentence, with the second year suspended upon condition that he pay restitution within one year of release. On appeal, the defendant claimed that he was entitled to a restitution hearing. The supreme court held that N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-08 did not apply where restitution was a result of plea-bargaining procedures, even though the specific amount was not known and to be determined later. In the absence of fraud, a the defendant who agreed to pay for damages and had a general idea of damages rather than a specific amount to be determined later could not claim unawareness of the amount or failure to agree to the amount. A hearing pursuant to § 12.1-32-08 was not required where the defendant agreed to pay restitution as a condition of a plea agreement. Further, § 12.1-32-07(2)(e) (current version at § 12.1-32-07(4)(e)) was also inapplicable where restitution or reparation was the result of a plea bargaining agreement between the State and the defendant.