Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Matthew M. Kubacki

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kyra Jacobs,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

September 18, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-554

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable David Hooper, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G08-1708-CM-30979

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Kyra Jacobs appeals the trial court’s restitution order following her conviction 

for class A misdemeanor criminal mischief. Jacobs asserts that insufficient 

evidence supports the restitution order and that the trial court abused its 

discretion in failing to inquire about her ability to pay. Finding the evidence 

sufficient and no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Pro Logistics is a staffing agency that provides temporary staffing for 

warehouses. On August 9, 2017, Jacobs appeared at the Pro Logistics office 

and was upset “because she was turned away from a job assignment due to it 

being overfilled.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. She was “irritated that she had wasted her 

time and was asking for reimbursement via gift card or some other kind of 

compensation for her time.” Id. After operations manager Christina Powell 

apologized to Jacobs and explained to her that the company did not reimburse 

for that kind of thing, Jacobs demanded to speak to a supervisor. Jacobs 

became more agitated, and Powell advised Jacobs that she needed to leave or 

the police would be called. Jacobs then stood up and pushed a computer 

“screen forward” onto the floor. Id. at 20. She also smashed a picture frame 

and went behind the reception desk and threw a laser printer “to the ground.” 

Id. at 21. Both the computer and the printer were “[ef]fectively destroyed.” Id. 

at 10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5

[3] The State charged Jacobs with class A misdemeanor criminal mischief. 

Following a bench trial, the court found her guilty as charged and sentenced her 

to one year of nonreporting probation. The trial court found Jacobs indigent as 

to court costs and instructed her that she could request to be found indigent as 

to the nominal fees associated with nonreporting probation in the event she was 

unable to pay those fees. The court ordered restitution in the amount of $1694 

in favor of Pro Logistics, but specifically advised the parties that the restitution 

was “not a condition of Probation.” Id. at 41. Jacobs now appeals the 

restitution order.

Discussion and Decision

Section 1 – The State presented sufficient evidence to support 

the restitution order.

[4] Jacobs first contends that the restitution order is not supported by sufficient 

evidence. In sentencing a criminal defendant, a trial court may order the 

defendant to “[m]ake restitution ... to the victim of the crime for damage ... that 

was sustained by the victim.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2.3(a)(6). “An order of 

restitution is as much a part of a criminal sentence as a fine or other penalty.” 

Bell v. State, 59 N.E.3d 959, 962 (Ind. 2016) (quotation marks and brackets 

omitted). The imposition of restitution falls “within the trial court’s discretion, 

and we will reverse only on a showing of abuse of discretion.” Garcia v. State, 47 

N.E.3d 1249, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied (2016). An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the 

facts and circumstances before it. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5

[5] “A restitution order must be supported by sufficient evidence of actual loss

sustained by the victim of a crime.” Id. “Evidence supporting a restitution order 

is sufficient if it affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss and does not 

subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.” Id. We will affirm 

the trial court’s decision regarding the amount of restitution to be paid if there is 

any evidence supporting the decision. Smith v. State, 990 N.E.2d 517, 520 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[6] The trial court ordered Jacobs to pay Pro Logistics $1694 in restitution. Jacobs 

argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support this estimation

of the actual loss sustained. On the issue of restitution, Powell testified that 

Jacobs destroyed a computer and a printer. She stated that the estimated 

damage was $995 for the computer and $699 for the printer. She testified that 

the damage estimates were based on information she received from the 

company’s lead IT employee who was familiar with the cost of replacement, 

setup, and installation of those pieces of equipment. This evidence is sufficient,

as it afforded the trier of fact a reasonable basis for estimating the actual loss 

suffered by Pro Logistics. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision 

regarding the amount of restitution to be paid.

Section 2 – The trial court was not required to inquire into 

Jacobs’s ability to pay.

[7] Jacobs next asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in entering a 

restitution order without first inquiring into her ability to pay. It is well settled 

that when restitution is ordered as a condition of probation or suspended 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5

sentence, the court is required to inquire into the defendant’s ability to pay. 

Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770, 772 (Ind. 2008). This rule is intended to 

prevent an indigent defendant from being imprisoned because of a probation 

violation based on her failure to pay restitution. Bell v. State, 59 N.E.3d 959, 

963 (Ind. 2016). However, when restitution is ordered as part of an executed 

sentence, no inquiry into the ability to pay is required because restitution is 

merely a money judgment, and a defendant cannot be imprisoned for 

nonpayment. Id.

[8] The trial court here simply entered a money judgment against Jacobs. Indeed, 

the court declined to make the restitution order a condition of probation and 

specifically acknowledged, “We’ve not inquired [in]to her ability to pay. So I 

can’t make it a condition of Probation.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 40. Jacobs concedes this 

point but nevertheless argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing 

to inquire into her ability to pay. Jacobs directs us to no legal authority, and we 

are unaware of any, which imposes such a requirement under the 

circumstances. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. 

[9] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.