ABATE and REMANI); Opinion issued November 29, 2012

in The 

## (!rourtofZ1ppeat 

# ififtlj iOitrict

## ofexaataUa No. 05-I2-00280-CR No. 05-12-00281-CR ____

No. 05-12-00282-CR____ LARRY MICHELLE SCHULZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

### On Appeal from the CriminalDistrictCourtNo. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial 

### Court Cause Nos. F10-00512-J, F10-00517-J, F10-00518-J 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, andMurphy Opinionby Justice Bridges Larry Michelle Schulz waived a jury and pleaded guilty to engaging in organized criminal activity, theft ofproperty from anelderlyperson valued at $20,000 ormore but less than $100,000, and unlawful restraint. 

### See TEx. PENAL CoDE ANN. 

## § 20.02(a), 

### 3 1.03(a), 71.02(a) (West 2011). Pursuant to plea agreements. the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on ten years’ community supervision, assessed a $1,000 fine, and ordered $85,506.22 in restitution in each case. 1 In a single issue, appellant contends the amount of restitution

IThe trial Court certified appellant has the right to appeal the amount ofrestitution. See Fix. R App. P 252(d).ordered does not have a factual basis in the record and, thus, constitutes an abuse ofdiscretion. Appellant asserts the proper remedy is to delete the restitution orders entirely. The State concedes there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish a factual basis forthe restitution ordered, butresponds the appropriate remedy is to set aside the amount ofrestitution ordered and remand to the trial courtto determine ajust amount ofrestitution. We review challenges to restitution orders under an abuse of discretion standard. Carrwright v. State. 605 S.W.2d 287, 288—89 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.j 1980). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure authorizes the sentencing court to orderpayment ofrestitution to the victim for losses sustained as a result ofthe convicted offense. TEx. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.037(a) (West Supp. 2011). While the sentencing court is authorizedto orderrestitution. due process requires three restrictions on the restitution atrial court may order: (1) the amount mustbejust and supportedby a factual basis within the record, (2) the restitution ordered must he only for the offense for which a defendant is criminally responsible, and 3) the restitution ordered must be proper only for the victims ofthe offense for which a defendant is charged. Canirellv. State. 75 S.W.3d 503. 512 (Tex. App.—Texarkana2002. pet. refd). In these cases, there is no evidence in the record to support the restitution order of $85.506.22. We sustain appellant’s issue as regards the amount ofrestitution ordered. When the record evidence is insufficient to supportthe amount ofrestitution ordered, the proper procedure is to set aside the amount ofrestitution and remand the cases for a hearing to determine ajust amount ofrestitution, and abate the appeals. Barton v State, 21 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex. Crirn. App. 2000); Cariwright. 605 S.W.2d at 289. Accordingly. we set aside the trial -2-courts restitution order and remand the cases to the trial court for a new determination ofthe properamount ofrestitution.

DAVID L. BR1I)GES JUST!CE
Do Not Publish Tizx. R. App. P. 47 120280F.U05

-3-