IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 202

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Manuel Gonzales, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230129

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.

REVERSED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Chase R. Lingle, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and 

appellee.

Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Gonzales

No. 20230129

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Manuel Gonzales appeals a district court order and amended judgment 

claiming the restitution ordered by the district court was not directly related 

to the crime to which he pleaded guilty. We reverse.

[¶2] Gonzales pleaded guilty to unlawful use of personal identifying 

information. The district court ordered Gonzales to make restitution of $556.00

for the value of property stolen from the victim’s vehicle, which included

$500.00 cash in a wallet, $45.00 to replace the wallet, and $11.00 to replace an 

ATM card and driver's license.

[¶3] “When reviewing a restitution order, we look to whether the district court 

acted within the limits set by statute, which is a standard similar to our abuse 

of discretion standard.” State v. Harstad, 2020 ND 151, ¶ 7, 945 N.W.2d 265. 

“A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or 

unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental 

process leading to a reasonable determination, or if it misinterprets or 

misapplies the law.” Id.

[¶4] “In determining the amount of restitution, the court shall take into 

account the reasonable damages sustained by the victim or victims of the 

criminal offense, which damages are limited to those directly related to the 

criminal offense and expenses actually sustained as a direct result of the 

defendant’s criminal action.” N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(4); see State v. Pippin, 496 

N.W.2d 50, 53 (N.D. 1993) (restitution requires “an immediate and intimate 

causal connection between the criminal conduct and the damages or expenses 

for which restitution is ordered”); State v. Carson, 2017 ND 196, ¶ 6, 900 

N.W.2d 41 (restitution damages are limited to damages “directly related to the 

criminal offense and expenses actually incurred as a direct result of the 

defendant’s criminal action”); Harstad, 2022 ND 106, ¶ 13 (there is no

“immediate causal connection between unrecovered” property from a car and a 

conviction of possession of a stolen vehicle). 
2

[¶5] Here, the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion by 

ordering restitution for the victim’s loss from theft when Gonzales pleaded 

guilty to unauthorized use of personal identifying information. No evidence at 

the restitution hearing supported, and no part of restitution ordered by the 

court, was directly related to Gonzales’ conviction for unauthorized use of 

personal identifying information. We reverse the order and amended 

judgment.

[¶6] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr