Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1710-CR-2413 | April 26, 2018 Page 1 of 6

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

R. Patrick Magrath

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jorge G. Carrillo,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 26, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A05-1710-CR-2413

Appeal from the Dearborn 

Superior Court

The Honorable Sally A. 

McLaughlin, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15D02-0703-FD-88

Altice, Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1710-CR-2413 | April 26, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Jorge Carrillo pled guilty to two counts of theft as Class D felonies. In addition 

to a three-year executed sentence, most of which was suspended to probation, 

the trial court ordered Carrillo to pay restitution in the amount of $10,917.46. 

On appeal, Carrillo argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him 

to pay restitution in the amount of $10,917.46.

[2] We affirm. 

Facts & Procedural History

[3] In 2005, Jorge Carrillo was hired as the manager for a gas station that contained 

a store. June Tucker was the bookkeeper for the store. In September 2006, 

Tucker noticed some discrepancies in the money and inventory of the store and 

began to suspect that an employee was engaged in theft. Tucker examined the 

discrepancies and eventually called the police, on October 5, 2006, when items 

she had documented were found in Carrillo’s vehicle. 

[4] An Indiana State Police trooper responded to Tucker’s call. The trooper spoke 

with Carrillo and asked to look in Carrillo’s vehicle. Multiple items from the 

store were found in the vehicle. Carrillo initially told the trooper that he was 

returning unused inventory to the distributor but later admitted that he had 

taken the items without permission. Carrillo told the trooper that he had taken 

items from the store in the past and would occasionally pay the store for some 

of the items. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1710-CR-2413 | April 26, 2018 Page 3 of 6

[5] Carrillo was arrested and charged, on March 27, 2007, with twenty-two counts 

of Class D felony theft. 1 On August 29, 2017, Carrillo pled guilty to two counts 

of theft, and the State dismissed the other twenty charges. Under the plea, the 

parties agreed that the amount of restitution would be determined by the trial 

court, and Carrillo agreed that he could be liable for restitution for the 

dismissed counts. 

[6] On September 19, 2017, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and

pronouncement of restitution. The trial court sentenced Carrillo and ordered 

him to pay $10,917.46 in restitution. Carrillo now appeals. Additional facts 

will be provided as necessary.

Discussion & Decision

[7] Carrillo argues the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount 

of restitution he owed Tucker. According to Carrillo, the calculation of the 

restitution amount was “improperly based upon insufficient evidence and 

contradicted evidence in the record.” Appellant’s Brief at 11. 

[8] “[T]he principal purpose of restitution is to vindicate the rights of society and to 

impress upon the defendant the magnitude of the loss the crime has caused, and 

that restitution also serves to compensate the victim.” Morgan v. State, 49 

N.E.3d 1091, 1093-94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Iltzsch v. State, 981 N.E.2d 

 

1 While not entirely clear, it appears from the record that in November 2007, Carrillo failed to appear for a 

court date and absconded. He was rearrested approximately ten years later.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1710-CR-2413 | April 26, 2018 Page 4 of 6

55, 56 (Ind. 2013)). In ordering restitution, a trial court shall consider “property 

damages of the victim incurred as a result of the crime, based on the actual cost 

of repair (or replacement if repair is inappropriate).” Ind. Code § 35-50-5-

3(a)(1).

[9] A restitution order must reflect a loss sustained by the victim “as a direct and 

immediate result” of the defendant’s criminal acts. Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 

51 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotations marks omitted), trans. denied. The 

amount of actual loss is a factual matter to be determined upon the presentation 

of evidence. Id. at 49. “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.” S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668, 683 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), trans. denied.

[10] A trial court’s order of restitution is a matter within its sound discretion, and we 

will reverse only upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Long v. 

State, 867 N.E.2d 606, 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs 

where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts 

and circumstances before it. Id. In determining whether the trial court abused 

its discretion, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Mogg 

v. State, 918 N.E.2d 750, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We will affirm the trial 

court’s decision if there is any evidence supporting it. Smith v. State, 990 N.E.2d 

517, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1710-CR-2413 | April 26, 2018 Page 5 of 6

[11] At the restitution hearing, Tucker testified that she used a computerized 

inventory software system to compile a list of inventory that was taken from the 

store. The list showed the total value of the items stolen by Carrillo to be 

$23,539.65. The State conceded that certain amounts should be deducted from 

Tucker’s list of lost inventory, i.e., $2,500.00 received by the store in insurance 

proceeds to cover product loss and $1,934.22, which represented the cost of 

product that Carrillo had returned to the store. Carrillo submitted his own 

calculation of restitution which the trial court also admitted into evidence. 

Carrillo’s value of items lost totaled $885.79. 

[12] In reaching its determination that the amount of restitution should be 

$10,917.46, the trial court explained: 

The Court is basing the restitution based on the sheet that is 

provided as State’s Exhibit 1[, Tucker’s inventory list,] as I’ve 

stated, I’m not counting any of the items where there was a 

vendor where checks were made. I am not counting the 

recovered items. I am not counting any of the items that appear 

to be taken from lottery, cash transferred to lottery, um, or gas 

cards charged to the store that may be fraudulent because none of 

that type of crime was asserted in the charging information but 

rather I’m looking at to [sic] the items that on the inventory 

control were presented as during the time that Mr. Carrillo was 

manager and in control of the store and the evidence has been 

clear and he admitted that he stole items in bulk form from the 

store and there is a list of inventory of items that were paid for 

but never appeared in the store for purchase to customers and 

therefore the costs of that were lost. The Court determined in 

going through this that that amount would be thirteen thousand 

five hundred and twenty-four dollars ($13,524.00). The Court is 

looking at the State’s memo which deducted a few other items 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1710-CR-2413 | April 26, 2018 Page 6 of 6

finding that the amount that they were requesting [is] ten 

thousand nine hundred seventeen dollars and forty-six cents 

($10,917.46). The Court is going to order restitution in that 

amount . . . . 

Transcript at 68. The trial court acted within its discretion in ordering 

restitution in the amount of $10,917.46. Carrillo’s arguments to the contrary 

amount to invitations to reweigh evidence and judge witness credibility, which 

we may not do.

[13] Judgment affirmed.

Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.