Opinion ID: 168917
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: M r. Troff’s Criminal Sentence

Text: It is uncontroverted that the court-imposed restitution obligation in this case was part of M r. Troff’s criminal sentence and a condition of his probation. The Utah state court mandated that M r. Troff comply with seventeen conditions if he w as to remain out of prison and on probation, one of w hich required that M r. Troff “[p]ay restitution in the amount of $239,969.” Aplt’s App. at 72 (State of Utah Protected Progress/Violation Report, filed Oct. 6 2001). W hen the court extended M r. Troff’s probation in October of 2000, it reiterated that M r. Troff was to “continue paying restitution.” A plt’s A pp. at 87 (Salt Lake County Sentencing Report, dated Oct. 30, 2000). 1 Because the court-imposed restitution obligation was part of M r. Troff’s criminal sentence, M r. Troff’s attempt to discharge the debt is squarely within the cross-hairs of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelly. 1 M r. Troff also maintains that the restitution obligation should be dischargeable because it was converted to a civil judgment after M r. Troff finished serving his probation. Although this conversion may alter the consequences for M r. Troff’s non-payment, it does not change the fact that the court-imposed restitution was part of his criminal sentence. 9