Opinion ID: 1287539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Washington's sentence

Text: As part of Washington's sentence, the district court ordered Washington to pay any future counselling costs for victim. Although not urged by Washington on appeal, we conclude that this portion of Washington's sentence violates NRS 176.033(1)(c). See Botts v. State, 109 Nev. 567, 568, 854 P.2d 856, 857 (1993). NRS 176.033 states, in pertinent part: 1. If a sentence of imprisonment is required or permitted by statute, the court shall: . . . . (c) If restitution is appropriate, set an amount of restitution for each victim of the offense. . . . In Botts, the district court refused to grant appellant a hearing on the exact amount of restitution to be imposed and, instead, required appellant to make restitution to the victim for past and future counselling expenses. Botts, 109 Nev. at 568, 854 P.2d at 857. We concluded that the district court failed to set an amount of restitution as required by NRS 176.033(1). Id. at 569, 854 P.2d at 857. The Botts court stated that [t]he statute contemplates that the district court will set a specific dollar amount of restitution. The statute does not allow the district court to award restitution in uncertain terms. Id. In the present case, we conclude the district court erred by failing to set a specific dollar amount of restitution to the victim for future counseling costs. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court pertaining to Washington's term of imprisonment, restitution to the Clark County Sexual Abuse Compensation Fund and assessment fee. We reverse the judgment of the district court pertaining to restitution for the victim's future counselling costs and remand that matter to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion. STEFFEN, C.J., and SHEARING and ROSE, JJ., concur.