Lee v. State, 512 A.2d 372 (Md. 1986)

Cases | Lee v. State, 512 A.2d 372 (Md. 1986) | 2018

The defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of forgery in return for a nol pros of a theft count after stealing $3,155 with six forged checks. At sentencing, the defendant signed an “Order of Probation” in which he agreed, as a condition of probation, to pay restitution of $3,155, the amount of loss charged in the nol-prossed theft count. After the defendant failed to pay restitution, the trial court revoked his probation, concluding that the defendant had expressly agreed to make restitution to the “victims” of the offenses charged in the indictment; that this was a “plural designation”; and that it was on this basis that the court ordered full restitution in amount of $3,155. On appeal, the defendant argued that he could not be ordered to pay the restitution because he had not been convicted of the offense of theft. The intermediate court held that, where a defendant, either in a plea agreement or by some other method, acknowledges a specific obligation to make restitution beyond the amount involved in the crime for which he was convicted, the trial court may order that amount of restitution, and affirmed the judgment. The Court of Appeals concluded that the purpose of the legislature in enacting § 640(b) can only be met by holding that the restitution order here was properly entered. The judgment was affirmed.