Prospero v. State, 768 A.2d 471 (Del. 2001)

Cases | Prospero v. State, 768 A.2d 471 (Del. 2001) | 2018

The defendant pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property and agreed to pay restitution pursuant to the plea agreement. Following receipt of a report issued by the presentence office, the trial court amended the sentencing order to include the specific amount of restitution owed. The defendant was ordered to pay restitution for all items of stolen property encompassed within the original charges. On appeal, the defendant claimed that he should not be required to pay restitution because the only item of stolen property encompassed within his plea agreement was a snowblower, which was recovered and returned to the victim undamaged. The court found that the defendant’s claim was without merit. The defendant agreed to be responsible for restitution in an amount to be determined by the presentence office and presented no evidence suggesting that he agreed to be responsible for restitution only with respect to one snowblower or that the trial court’s amended sentencing order did not correctly reflect the information contained in the presentence office’s report.