II A sentencing court's authority to order restitution is purely statutory and, where so authorized, the sentencing court has discretion to determine the amount of restitution. The exercise of such discretion is reversible only where it is manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. In determining any sentence, including restitution, the sentencing court may rely on no more information than is admitted by the plea agreement, or admitted, acknowledged, or proved in a trial or at the time of sentencing. Where a defendant disputes material facts for purposes of restitution, the sentencing court must either not consider those facts or grant an evidentiary hearing where the State must prove the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Restitution does not need to be proven with specific accuracy.
Evidence is sufficient if it affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss.
However, restitution must be based on a causal connection between the crime and the victim's damages. The causal connection between Dedonado's actions and the damages was an issue of material fact and was disputed. Thus, an evidentiary hearing was required to determine whether the Adret Signal Generator was properly replaced with the HP ESG 3000A and whether the items such as the dome lamp bulbs, fluids, and front suspension alignment were properly attributed to Dedonado's actions. A causal connection is not established simply because a victim or insurer submits proof of expenditures for replacing property stolen or damaged by the person convicted. Such expenditures may be for items of substantially greater or lesser value than the actual loss.