Cases | Juliano v. State, 890 A.2d 847 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) | 2018
The defendant was convicted of one count of theft of property with a value of $500 or more after using a stolen credit card to purchase automotive parts from an auto parts store. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with all but eleven years suspended, and four years of probation on the condition that he pay $6,881.42 in restitution to the store. On appeal, the defendant argued that: 1) the restitution statute was unconstitutional because it violates due process by not requiring “the State to prove the facts supporting an award of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence;” and 2) that the order was not supported by competent evidence. The intermediate court held that: 1) the restitution statute does not relieve the State of its obligation at sentencing to prove a victim’s entitlement to restitution, and therefore, does not offend due process; and 2) “the prosecutor’s representations during the sentencing phase of [the defendant’s] trial do not constitute ‘competent evidence’ of Brandywine’s loss” because the prosecutor did not rely on any bills and credit card receipts entered into evidence. The restitution order was vacated and remanded for a new restitution hearing.