A re stitut ion order must be suppor ted by evidenc e that provide s a re asonable basis for 1 estimating the loss. Car twr igh t v . S tate , 6 05 S.W. 2d

28 7, 28 9 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); 24 C.J.S. Criminal L aw § 2490 (2006). 

## IN THE COUR T OF CRIMINA L APPEALS

OF TEX AS
N o. P D - 1642- 07

SER G I O V EL A BA R R ER A , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON THE ST ATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW I N CA USE NO . 1 3 - 0 3 - 7 0 7 - CR FRO M THE 1 3 TH CO URT O F AP PEALS HI DALG O CO UNTY

H OL C OM B , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t , i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., and P RI CE , W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , and C OCHR AN , J J ., jo in e d . M E YE RS , J. , di d not part i ci pat e.
The trial c ourt order ed appellant to pa y restitution to his victim’s estate a lthough ther e wa s
no evidenc e presented at trial to support such an order
. The court of appeals held that the proper 1

re me dy fo r t he tr ia l c ourt ’s e rr or wa s de le tio n of the re sti tut ion or de r f ro m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. We reve rse a

nd rema nd.BA RRERA - 2

Be cause appellant did not cha lleng e at tria l the trial court’ s leg al authority to issue the 2 restitution order, he forf

eited the r ight to cha lleng e that leg al authority on appea l. As we explained in Id

owu v . S tate , “[i] f a de fenda

nt wishes to complain about the appr opriatene ss of (as (continued...) On September

17, 20 02, an Hidalg o County g rand jury

returne d an indictment cha rg ing appellant with the murder of Maria de l Socorro B arr era . SeeTe x. Pe n. Cod e § 1 9. 02 (b )( 1) . O n July 22 , 2 00 3, the State br ou g ht a pp e lla nt t o tr ia l be fo re a

jur y on his ple a of no t guil ty . A ft e r h e ari nga ll the evid e n c e a t t

h e g u il t s ta g e , th e ju

r y f o un d a p p e ll an t gu il ty

a s c h ar g e d

in th e in d ic tm e n t. A f

te r hear ing a dditional evidence at the punishment stag e, the j u ry assessed a

ppellant’s punishment at imprisonment for 99 y ear s and a f ine of $10,000. Shortly

there afte r, the followingtranspire d: Trial Court: Finding no rea son not to pronounce se ntence ag ainst y ou, Isentenc e you to serve in the I

nstitut ional Division of the Texas D epar tment of Criminal J ustice for a ter m of 99 y ear s and asse ss a fine in the a mount of $10,000. * * * You ar e orde red to pa

y restitution in the amount of – Prosecutor: I

don’t know, Judge. Trial Court: I s the family

here ? Prosecutor: The family

is here, Judge
. Trial Court: Do y ou know what the f unera l char g es, expenses, we re? Prosecutor: $12,000. Tr ia l Co ur

t: We re the re fu

ne ra l e xpe ns e s? Pr os e c uto r: Ye s, tho se are the fu ne ra l e xpe ns e s. Tr ia l Co ur

t: You are or de re d to pay re sti tut ion in t he amou nt o f $ 12 ,0 00 to t

he fa mil y of the vic tim
. At trial, appellant objected to ne ither the trial court’s leg al authority to issue the restitution order nor the evidentiar

y basis for that or der. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. a rt. 42.037(a) , (c) , (d) & 2BA RRERA - 3

(...continued) 2 op po se d to the fa c tua l ba sis fo r) a tr ia l c ourt ’s re sti tut ion

or de r, he mus t do so in t

he tr ia l c ourt , and he must do so explicitl y .” Id owu v . S tate , 73 S.W .3d 918, 921 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (par enthetica l material in orig inal). In Id owu we no te d, wi tho ut d e c idi ng , th a t “ [w]he the r t he [tr ia l] r e c or d p ro vid e s a 3 sufficie nt fac tual basis for a particula r re stitut ion order c ould be consider ed an e videntiary sufficie ncy

question that need not be prese rved by objection at the tria l level.” Id owu v . S tate , 73 S.W .3d 918, 922 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). (k). On dir ect a

ppeal, howeve r, ap p el l ant arg ued that the tria l court er red in orde ring him to pay
re sti tut ion

be c a us e the re wa s an in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nti ary

ba sis fo r s uc h a

n o rd e r. Th e State ’s re sp on se to appellant’s a

rgument was two-fold. The S tate arg ued first that “[a]ppellant’s complaint was not prese rved [for a

ppellate r eview] bec ause [he] failed to object when restitution wa s imposed.” The State argued sec ond that the trial cour t’s restitution order wa s ad eq u ately supported by

the pr os e c uto r’ s st a te me nt to the tr ia l c ourt , r e c ounte d a bo ve , r e g ard ingthe vic tim ’s fu ne ra l e xpe ns e s. The court of appe als, citing our dec ision in Id owu v . S tate , 73 S.W .3d 918 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002), held that a

ppellant could cha lleng e, for the first time on appea l, the evidentiar y basis for the trial co u rt ’s re s tituti on order
. Ba rre ra v . S tate , 2 35 S.W. 3d

32 6, 33 2 ( Te x.Ap p. –Co rp us Chr ist i 3 2007). The c ourt of appe als also held, as a ppellant had argued, that the t rial court’s restitution order lacke d a suff

icient evidentiar

y basis. Id . at 332. Fina lly , t h e co urt of appe als held that the prope r
re me dy fo r t he tr ia l court ’s e rr or wa s del e tio n of the re sti tut ion or de r fr om t he tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. Id . at 33 3. Th e c ourt

of a pp e a ls e xpla ine d th a t la st h old inga s f oll ow s: “We . .
. believe that in a case such a s this – in which (1) re stitut ion has bee n imposed alongwith a s entence of c onfinement, (2) restitution as a condition of probation or co m m u n ity

supervision is not involved, and (3) ther e is insufficient evidenc e to support the amount of restitution or dere d – the prope r cour se of a ction is to delete t he portion of t he trial court’s judgment ordering restitution. A trial cour t has no continuing jurisdiction under these c ircumstance s, and t he S tate shoul d not be aff orded a second oppor

tunity to present leg ally

sufficie nt evidence .” Ibid.BA RRERA - 4

The State’s g round for

revie w re ads as f

ollows: “What is t he prope r re medy when a n 4 appellate court de termines that the e vidence is insufficient to support the amount of re stitut ion th e tr i a l c o urto r d e r e d

w h e nth e s e n t e n c e w a s n o ts u s p e n d e d ?” The Double J eopar dy

Clause of the F ifth Amendment to the Constitut ion of the United 5 States provides that no per son shall “be subjec t for the same offe nce to be twice put in jeopar dy of life or limb.” This gua

rante e wa s made a

pplicable to the States by the Due Proc ess Clause of the Four teenth Amendme nt. Benton v. M aryland , 395 U.S. 784, 794 (1969). The c ourt of appe als aff

irmed the trial c ourt’s judg ment as modified. Ib id
. The State late r filed a

petition for di s cr et i o n ary revie w asser

ting one g round for

revie w, which we g rante d. See Te x. R. A pp . Pr oc . 6 6. 3( c ). I n it s p e tit ion and a c c omp anyingbr ie f, the State 4 argues that the c ourt of appe als, afte r hol ding that the t rial court’s restitution order lac ked a suf ficient evidentiar y basis, should have re manded the case to the trial cour t for a ne w re stitut ion hear ing r ather than simply

deletingthe re stitut ion order f rom the trial court’s judg ment. The State a rgues fur ther that “[r]emanding f

or a ne w re stitut ion hear ing [would] honor[ ] t he leg islative intent that restitution be awarde d [t o c r im e v ic ti ms o r th e ir e s tate s ], an d

it w o u ld c ar r [y ] o u t t h e tr ia l c o urt’ s inte nded punishment.” Appellant a rgues in response that the re asoning of the c ourt of appe als is sound and that w e sh ou ld a do pt i t. H e a lso argue s th a t a re mand of the c a se fo r a ne w r e sti tut ion he ari ngwo uld vio late the Do ub le Jeop ard y Cla us e of the F if

th Ame ndme nt be c a

us e the Cla

us e pr oh ibi ts t

he State 5 “fr om ge tting a se cond bite at the e videntiary apple when it f ailed to meet its restitution burden at the first trial.” In Car twr igh t v. S

tate , 605 S.W .2d 287, 289 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) , we held that when the
rec ord evide nce is insufficient to support the amount of re stitut ion ordere d as a c ondition of p ro b at i o n , th e p ro p er

re m ed y i s t o re m an d

t h e c as e t o t h e t r i a l c o urt fo r an ew re s t i tu t i o nh ea ri n g. L ater , in Ba rto n v . S

tate , 21 S.W.3 d 287 , 290 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ), we re a ff ir me d th e ho ldi nginBA RRERA - 5

Cartw right
. L ater still , in Be e dy v . S tate , 250 S.W .3d 107, 113 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008), we e x plained that we had rea ched the conc lusion that we had in Barton beca use “[ t] he trial judge in Barton was authorized to order

restitution” and “the only defe ct prese nt w as that the amount of re stitut ion was unsupported by

the re cord.” Had the tr ial judge in Barton not been authorized to or der r estitution,
we e x plained fur

ther, the pr oper r emedy

would have been deletion of the re stitut ion condition from the trial cour

t’s ju d g ment. Ib id . I n other wor ds, the proper reme dy “depe nds on whether

the trial judge acte d lawfully .” Ib id
. In the instant case , the trial judge acte d lawfully , or at least we must pre sume so, beca use the qu e sti on of the lawf uln e ss o f h e r r e sti tut ion

or de r is not be fo re us . Th e on ly “ de fe c t pre se nt, ” a s in Cartw right

and Barton , is tha t th e amou nt o f r e sti tut ion

or de re d is un su

pp or te d b y the re c or d. Thus , the proper reme dy in this case , as in Cartw right and Barton , is to rema

nd the case to the trial cour t for a new r estitu t i o n hear ing. See G. Dix & R. Dawson, Texas Practice : Criminal Practice and Procedure § 43.505 (2nd ed. 2002)
. As we note d previously , t h e court of appea ls, in concluding that the prope r re medy was deletion of the trial court’s restitution order from it s judgme nt, was conc erne d that the “tria l court has no continuing jurisdiction under [ the] circ umstances [ of t his case ], and the State should not be aff orded a second oppor

tunity to present leg ally

sufficie nt evidence .” Ba rre ra v . S tate , 235 S.W .3d at 333. We are not persuade d that those are valid conce rns. Certainly , the t rial court, upon remand, will have jurisdiction to conduct a new restitution hearing . And, in view of this state’s public policy favor ing r estitution t o crime vic tims and their estates, as expressed i n Article 42.037 of the Texas Cod e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e du

re , w e do no t th ink

it unre a so na

ble to g ive the State a

se c on d o pp or

tun ity to prove the pr oper a

mount of resti tution. Finally , it is bey ond question that the Double JeopardyBA RRERA - 6

Clause of the F ifth Amendment does not bar the State from suc h a sec ond opportunity
. See M onge
v . Ca lif or nia , 524 U.S. 721, 728 (1998) (d o u ble jeopar dy protec tions are not applicable to noncapital se ntencingproce eding s). We sustain the State’s g round for revi ew , re v er s e that par

t of the judg ment of the c ourt of appea ls that deleted the tria l court’s re stitut ion order, a nd rema nd the case to the trial court for a new
re s t i tu t i o nh ea ri n g.

DEL I VERED SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 PUB L I SH