Opinion ID: 1840075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Was Richards properly ordered to reimburse the county for certain defense expenses?

Text: Richards' next argument asserts that the trial court lacked the legal authority to order him to reimburse Hennepin County the sum of $50,000 for funds expended in his defense. A trial court may, as part of a sentence, order a defendant either to pay restitution, Minn.Stat. § 609.10(5) (1994), or to reimburse sums expended by the prosecution or by the government to compensate a public defender or other appointed counsel. Minn. Stat. §§ 631.48 and 611.35, subd. 1 (1994). But, restitution must be paid only to a victim. Minn.Stat § 609.10(5) (1994); State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn.1984). A trial court may order a defendant represented by a public defender or appointive counsel to reimburse the government for the compensation paid the public defender or appointed counsel, if the defendant is financially able to pay. Minn.Stat. § 611.35, subd. 1 (1994). However, no recovery of the salaries paid prosecuting attorneys is allowed. Minn.Stat. § 631.48 (1994). In this instance, the trial court ordered Richards to reimburse the county for a portion of the funds expended on his behalf, but did not specify its rationale for doing so. The court did, however, note that it was ordering the reimbursement because, in its estimation, Richards had wasted at least that much. While we believe the trial judge should have been more specific in his reasoning, we find adequate support in the record to credit the judge's conclusion. Thus, we affirm the reimbursement order.