Opinion ID: 2551439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Disclose Probation Violation and Restitution Reduction

Text: Finally, applicant argues that the state also failed to disclose its withdrawal of a probation violation against Ms. Holman and a $2,500 restitution reduction as inducements for her testimony, again violating the Brady doctrine. The applicant specifically contends that the state never disclosed its withdrawal of Ms. Holman's probation violation, its knowledge and agreement to postpone restitution owed by Ms. Holman until after she testified at applicant's trial, or how it modified Ms. Holman's restitution obligation by $2,500, which he asserts were clearly direct financial inducements for her to gain his conviction. It is undisputed that after Ms. Holman's plea a special master fixed an amount of restitution at $5,000, pending [the] outcome of co-defendant's case. Ms. Holman then paid $2,500. The state explained, on appeal, that in July 2008, before the expiration of Ms. Holman's one-year suspended sentence on the insurance-fraud count, it had to move to violate Ms. Holman on her probation to preserve her joint and several liability for the entire $5,000. The magistrate indeed found that the violation simply was brought in accordance with the holdings of our Supreme Court indicating that if the [s]tate did not bring this action within a specified period of time[,] namely, the sentence of [Ms. Holman], the [s]tate would lose all of [its] right to collect any of the money, and he noted that [t]he presentment was clear that no amount of restitution had been forgiven. We believe that the magistrate did not clearly err in these findings. It cannot be said that the state's withdrawal of this procedural violation was somehow a financial inducement for Ms. Holman's testimony. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate's decision on this matter. Further, it is undisputed that, upon the applicant's conviction, he was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution. This Court affirmed his conviction in September 2005, and as a result, in March 2006, Ms. Holman's restitution obligation was reduced from $5,000 to $2,500. The magistrate observed that, although restitution is a joint and several obligation, it is not unusual and is rather the practice that it be modified if a codefendant is convicted. He also noted that Ms. Holman had ultimately resolved her obligation by paying one-half the full amount of restitution. The magistrate did not clearly err in his findings. There is no evidence that indicates that Ms. Holman's restitution reduction was somehow a reward or inducement to testify. Additionally, there is no evidence that shows that the prosecution had any influence over either Ms. Holman's initial restitution determination or the decision to reduce that amount. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate's denial of Mr. Gordon's application for postconviction relief.