Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01060/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Geraldine Hancey Hedderick
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

UniU!d States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

JAN 2 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

No. 88-1060 

(D.C. No. 87-CR-46G) 

( Dist. Utah) 

GERALDINE HANCEY HEDDERICK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant Geraldine Hancey Hedderick was convicted of nine 

counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and one count of bank 

fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. On appeal she raises two main 

issues that we will address: (1) that her trial counsel was 

ineffective; and (2) that the trial court failed to follow the 

statute in ordering restitution. The remaining issues were not 

raised below, and we are not persuaded that they have a reasonable 

basis in the law. 

Defendant contends that her trial counsel was ineffective 

because he failed to move for a judgment of acquittal, to submit 

jury instructions, to cross-examine one of the prosecution's 

witnesses, to call a witness to corroborate defendant's testimony 

Appellate Case: 88-1060 Document: 01019962388 Date Filed: 01/26/1989 Page: 1 
,/ 

on one point, and to argue that section 1343 is inapplicable to 

defendant's actions. In order to establish ineffectiveness of 

counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a 

defendant must establish both that counsel's performance was 

exceptionally deficient and that "counsel's errors were so serious 

as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result 

is reliable." Id. at 687. We have reviewed the entire record in 

this case, and we conclude that defendant has not met either one 

of the Strickland prongs. 

We are more troubled by defendant's contention that the trial 

court did not make fact findings on the restitution issue. The 

trial court's sentencing order reads as follows: 

"The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the 

Attorney General or his authorized representative for 

imprisonment for a period of EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS as to 

Count 1 pursuant to 18 u.s.c. § 4205(a) and is further 

ordered to pay restitution in the amount of FIFTY ONE 

THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIVE ($51,205) DOLLARS to those who 

have been harmed by defendant's conduct as determined by 

the Department of Probation. A FIFTY ($50.00) DOLLAR 

victim fee as assessed to Count 1. The sentence on 

Counts 2 through 10 is suspended and probation is 

ordered for FIVE (5) YEARS pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3651 

which probation shall commence after the termination of 

imprisonment ordered in connection with Count 1 and any 

period of parole or supervised release associated with 

that sentence." 

Document No. 78, Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order, filed 

January 13, 1988, at p. 1. Although the trial judge did not so 

state, restitution was clearly ordered under the Victim and 

Witness Protection Act, 18 u.s.c. §§ 3663, 3664, because the 

restitution was made a part of the sentence. See United States v. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1060 Document: 01019962388 Date Filed: 01/26/1989 Page: 2 
/ . -

Pomazi, 851 F.2d 244, 247 (9th Cir. 1988). The Act requires the 

court to consider numerous factors in determining the appropriate 

amount of restitution. See 18 u.s.c. § 3664. Moreover, the court 

may not impose restitution for any amount for which the victim has 

been compensated, id§ 3663(e)(l), and "[a]ny amount paid to a 

victim under an order of restitution shall be set off against any 

amount later recovered as compensatory damages by such victim" in 

any state or federal civil proceeding, id§ 3663(e)(2). Defendant 

argues that the district court erred by failing to make the 

required findings on the record so that we can assess whether the 

standards of the Act were followed. See United States v. Hill, 

798 F.2d 402, 406-07 (10th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. 

Watchman, 749 F.2d 616, 619 (10th Cir. 1984). We agree. We have 

reviewed the transcript of the sentencing proceedings, and it 

contains no findings as to the basis for the court's conclusion 

that $51,205.00 is an appropriate amount of restitution. 

Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for 

further proceedings consistent herewith. In all other respects, 

the judgment is affirmed. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1060 Document: 01019962388 Date Filed: 01/26/1989 Page: 3