Court Opinion

ID: 9931475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 06:04:55.200079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:01.175339
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                      FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                      February 8, 2024
               Plaintiff-Appellee,                                    9:10 a.m.

v                                                                     No. 364303
                                                                      Berrien Circuit Court
KHALIF PIERRE WILL BENTLEY,                                           LC No. 2019-000264-FC

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FEENEY, P.J., and RICK and HOOD, JJ.

HOOD, J.

        Defendant Khalif Pierre Will Bentley appeals by leave granted1 the trial court’s restitution
order in the amount of $156,849.54, holding him jointly and severally liable for the restitution
amount along with his four codefendants. He argues that there was insufficient evidence in the
record to support the trial court’s finding of actual loss entitling the victim to restitution because
of speculation regarding the victim’s healthcare coverage and whether the medical provider
forgave his debt. The trial court correctly awarded restitution for the victim’s medical debt and
did not speculate about the possibility that the debt was forgiven. We affirm.

                                        I. BACKGROUND

         This case started with a restitution order, which itself arose out of Bentley’s participation
in an armed robbery in November 2018. Bentley and his four codefendants traveled from Chicago,
Illinois, to Benton Harbor, Michigan, to steal 1½ pounds of marijuana. When the five defendants
arrived in Benton Harbor, some of them entered the house. Others, including Bentley, remained
in the cars parked outside. During the robbery, one of the codefendants pointed a gun at Hunter
Lutz, the victim in this case. When Lutz attempted to knock the gun away, Bentley’s codefendant
fired and shot Lutz in the neck. Lutz was hospitalized for approximately two weeks following the
shooting. He sustained two broken vertebrae and two broken ribs, and he was in a coma for five

1
 People v Bentley, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 7, 2023 (Docket
No. 364303).

                                                 -1-
days. By the time of the restitution hearing, doctors had performed approximately 10 surgeries,
including a tracheotomy. Lutz had to relearn to walk and talk. He was hospitalized from
November 3, 2018, to November 19, 2018. This resulted in a bill of $155,569.54 that he received
in May 2019. This bill, as opposed to future treatment or lost wages, is at issue in this case.

        Bentley pleaded guilty to armed robbery causing serious injury, MCL 750.529. His plea
agreement provided a sentencing agreement of 10 to 35 years’ imprisonment. The parties left open
the issue of restitution. At his plea hearing, Bentley admitted to his role in the armed robbery. He
did not carry a firearm during the robbery, or even enter the apartment, but he knew that his
confederate was carrying a firearm. In separate proceedings, Lutz was charged for drug
trafficking, but the case against Lutz was dismissed prior to Bentley’s restitution hearing.

        The trial court held a restitution hearing in July 2022.2 At the hearing, the prosecutor
introduced the bill that Lutz received from Lakeland Health Hospital (Lakeland) in the amount of
$155,569.54. The prosecutor also offered Lutz’s credit report as evidence of a debt of $680 to Sun
Coast Anesthesiology, instead of a bill. Lutz testified that he had not paid toward the bill from
Lakeland, but he had paid $600 toward the bill from Sun Coast Anesthesiology (suggesting the
original Sun Coast bill was $1,280). Lutz testified that his insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, denied
his claim for coverage because the injuries that he sustained occurred during his participation in
criminal activity. At the time of the hearing, no one from Lakeland had contacted Lutz regarding
the outstanding bill, beyond sending its initial bill. There was no evidence that Lakeland had made
attempts to collect, and there was no evidence that Lakeland had forgiven the debt. The debt did
not appear on Lutz’s credit report.

        At the restitution hearing, Bentley and his codefendants argued that the court should not
order restitution, arguing primarily that there was no evidence that Lakeland pursued collection of
Lutz’s bill nor that Lutz had made any payments toward the bill. According to Bentley and his
codefendants, Lutz therefore had not sustained an actual loss and ordering restitution was
improper.

         The trial court rejected this argument, noting that the bill from Lakeland Health Hospital
itself was the manner in which most businesses communicate to a client that a debt is owed. It,
therefore, represented Lutz’s debt owed to Lakeland Health Hospital. The fact that Lutz had made
no payments toward the bill was immaterial because he was nevertheless indebted to Lakeland
Health Hospital. The trial court ordered that Bentley and his codefendants pay $156,849.54 in
restitution, reasoning that the two bills were reasonably authentic and provided sufficient proof of
Lutz’s loss. The trial court concluded that evidence in the record supported the amount ordered in
restitution. Bentley now appeals.

2
 The delay between his plea and sentencing was at least in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s
impact on court operations. Bentley and his co-defendants elected to exercised their right to be
physically present for the contested restitution hearing.

                                                -2-
                                  II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s calculation of a restitution
amount, while reviewing the trial court’s factual findings for clear error. People v Foster, 319
Mich App 365, 374; 901 NW2d 127 (2017). A trial court abuses its discretion when it chooses an
outcome outside of the range of principled outcomes, People v Lee, 314 Mich App 266, 272; 886
NW2d 185 (2016), or when it makes an error of law, People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723; 835
NW2d 399 (2013); People v Corbin, 312 Mich App 352, 361; 880 NW2d 2 (2015) (relating to
restitution orders specifically, “[a] trial court may abuse its discretion by blurring the distinction
between a civil remedy for damages and the criminal penalty of restitution.”). The proper
application of MCL 780.766(2) and MCL 769.1a, which authorize the trial court to award
restitution, is a matter of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. Foster, 319 Mich App
at 374. See also People v Cross, 281 Mich App 737, 739; 760 NW2d 314 (2008).

                                        III. RESTITUTION

         At its core, Bentley argues that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the
trial court’s restitution order. More specifically, he argues that the evidence—particularly
evidence that the victim’s health insurance covered his medical expenses or that the healthcare
provider forgave the medical debt—did not provide a reasonably certain factual foundation for the
restitution amount, rendering the amount ordered speculative. Bentley asserts that the
insufficiency of evidence resulted in a due process violation requiring this Court to set aside the
restitution order. We disagree.3

    A. RESTITUTION UNDER THE CRIME VICTIM’S RIGHTS ACT AND THE GENERAL
                             RESTITUTION ACT

        This case requires our understanding and analysis of the statutes that entitle crime victims
like Lutz to restitution.

               The overriding goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect
        to the Legislature’s intent. The touchstone of legislative intent is the statute’s
        language. The words of a statute provide the most reliable indicator of the
        Legislature’s intent and should be interpreted on the basis of their ordinary meaning

3
  At the outset, we note that Bentley frames the issue on appeal as a violation of his constitutional
right to due process, arguing that the trial court ordered restitution not supported by facts in the
record and, as a result, imposed an invalid sentence premised on inaccurate information. At their
core, insufficient-of-the-evidence claims are due process claims. People v Hawkins, 245 Mich
App 439, 457; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). “[I]t is an undisputed principle of judicial review that
questions of constitutionality should not be decided if the case may be disposed of on other
grounds.” J & J Constr Co v Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Local 1, 468 Mich 722, 734; 664
NW2d 728 (2003). Rather, “pursuant to the widely accepted and venerable rule of constitutional
avoidance,” this Court may instead resolve this issue on statutory grounds. People v McKinley,
496 Mich 410, 415-416; 852 NW2d 770 (2014). As such, Bentley’s claim is addressed from the
perspective of applicable statutes and caselaw.

                                                 -3-
       and the overall context in which they are used. An undefined statutory word or
       phrase must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, unless the undefined word
       or phrase is a term of art with a unique legal meaning. [People v DeBono, ___ Mich
       App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 362041); slip op at 3 (quotation
       marks and citation omitted).]

         Crime victims have a constitutional and a statutory right to restitution. See Const 1963, art
1, § 24; MCL 780.766; Cross, 281 Mich App at 739; People v Turn, 317 Mich App 475, 479; 896
NW2d 805 (2016). Two primary statutes authorize and require the court to order restitution. See
Foster, 319 Mich App at 375, citing MCL 769.1a and MCL 780.766. First, the general restitution
statute, MCL 769.1a, provides in relevant part:

               (2) Except as provided in subsection (8), when sentencing a defendant
       convicted of a felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation, the court shall order,
       in addition to or in lieu of any other penalty authorized by law or in addition to any
       other penalty required by law, that the defendant make full restitution to any victim
       of the defendant’s course of conduct that gives rise to the conviction or to the
       victim's estate. [MCL 769.1a(2).]

Second, MCL 780.766(2), which falls under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA), MCL
780.751 et seq., also provides for restitution and states in relevant part:

              (2) Except as provided in subsection (8), when sentencing a defendant
       convicted of a crime, the court shall order, in addition to or in lieu of any other
       penalty authorized by law or in addition to any other penalty required by law, that
       the defendant make full restitution to any victim of the defendant’s course of
       conduct that gives rise to the conviction or to the victim’s estate. [MCL 780.766(2)
       (emphasis added).]

                                               * * *

                (8) The court shall order restitution to the crime victim services commission
       or to any individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations, governmental
       entities, or other legal entities that have compensated the victim or the victim’s
       estate for a loss incurred by the victim to the extent of the compensation paid for
       that loss. The court shall also order restitution for the costs of services provided to
       persons or entities that have provided services to the victim as a result of the crime.
       Services that are subject to restitution under this subsection include, but are not
       limited to, shelter, food, clothing, and transportation. However, an order of
       restitution shall require that all restitution to a victim or victim’s estate under the
       order be made before any restitution to any other person or entity under that order
       is made. The court shall not order restitution to be paid to a victim or victim’s
       estate if the victim or victim’s estate has received or is to receive compensation for
       that loss, and the court shall state on the record with specificity the reasons for its
       action. [MCL 780.766(2), (8) (emphasis added).]

                                                 -4-
         Despite some differences between these two statutes,4 both mandate restitution. See Lee,
314 Mich App at 273-274. Under the CVRA, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the
amount of the victim’s loss, and the court must resolve any dispute regarding the proper amount
of restitution, by a preponderance of the evidence. See MCL 780.767(4). Notably, neither the
CVRA nor the general restitution statute define “full restitution,” but under the plain meaning of
the word “full,” both statutes “impose a duty on sentencing courts to order defendants to pay
restitution that is maximal and complete.” People v Garrison, 495 Mich 362, 368; 852 NW2d 45
(2014). Although restitution must be maximal and complete, there must also be a “direct, causal
relationship between the conduct underlying the convicted offense and the amount of restitution
to be awarded.” People v McKinley, 496 Mich 410, 421; 852 NW2d 770 (2014). Therefore,
“restitution may encompass only those losses that are easily ascertained and are a direct result of
a defendant’s criminal conduct.” Corbin, 312 Mich App at 362 (quotation marks and citations
omitted).

        The only real exception to mandatory restitution is when “the victim or the victim’s estate
has received or is to receive compensation for that loss . . . .” Lee, 314 Mich App at 274, citing
MCL 780.766(8) and Bell, 276 Mich App at 347. “Thus, under the clear statutory language
indicating that the trial court shall order restitution to the victim, restitution is mandatory, unless
the exception applies.” Lee, 314 Mich App at 274 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). A
court therefore may not order restitution for losses that are covered by insurance. See Corbin, 312
Mich App at 360. But restitution is separate and independent from damages sought in a civil
proceeding. See Lee, 314 Mich App at 275 (collecting cases, including People v Dimoski, 286
Mich App 474, 481; 780 NW2d 896 (2009), which, relevant here, held that a “civil judgment alone
provides no basis for reduction in the restitution award”).

        Put simply, the amount of restitution must be based on the actual loss suffered by the
victim. People v Fawaz, 299 Mich App 55, 65; 829 NW2d 259 (2012). The standard for
calculating a restitution award under the CVRA is “simply one of reasonableness.” Corbin, 312
Mich App at 365. The language of the statute “does not suggest the need for absolute precision,
mathematical certainty, or a crystal ball.” Id. But “speculative or conjectural losses” are not

4
  Despite significant overlap, there are critical differences between these two statutes. Under the
CVRA, a “victim” is defined as “an individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial,
or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime.” MCL 780.766(1). Restitution
available under the CVRA can “compensate victims for losses associated with either physical or
psychological injury.” Corbin, 312 Mich App at 359. Notably, an order of restitution can require
a defendant to “[p]ay an amount equal to the reasonably determined cost of medical and related
professional services and devices actually incurred and reasonably expected to be incurred relating
to physical and psychological care.” MCL 780.766(4)(a). The key difference between the CVRA
and the general restitution statute is that the general restitution statute permits restitution only for
“actual medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical and
psychological care.” MCL 769.1a(4)(a). The general restitution statute, therefore, does not appear
to contemplate future expenses that are reasonably expected to be incurred. See Corbin, 312 Mich
App at 360.

                                                  -5-
deemed “reasonably expected to be incurred” under the CVRA. Id. (quotation marks omitted).
See also In re White, 330 Mich App 476, 483; 948 NW2d 643 (2019) (“The restitution calculation
cannot be premised on speculative or conjectural loss, but, rather, the evidence must support a
reasonably certain factual foundation for the amount.”). Therefore, “[w]here the evidence provides
a reasonably certain factual foundation for a restitution amount, the statutory standard is met.”
Corbin, 312 Mich App at 365.

        To that end, “[w]hen determining the amount of restitution to award a victim, the focus is
consistently not on what a defendant took, but what a victim lost because of the defendant’s
criminal activity.” In re White, 330 Mich App at 483 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Moreover, “[r]estitution is not designed to provide a windfall for crime victims, but was created to
ensure that victims are made whole for their losses to the extent possible.” Id. at 480.

B. LUTZ’S BAD CONDUCT DOES NOT EXCLUDE HIM OR DEFENDANTS FROM THE
                      RESTITUTION FRAMEWORK

       Here, in addition to his arguments regarding actual loss, Bentley also argues that because
Lutz was engaged in illegal activities during the commission of the armed robbery, it was improper
to award him restitution as a victim of Bentley’s criminal conduct. We disagree.

         First, Lutz was unquestionably a victim within the terms of the CVRA and the general
restitution statute, both of which entitled him to restitution. See MCL 780.766(1); MCL 769.1a(4).
Lutz was a victim under the CVRA and the general restitution statute because he suffered a direct
physical and financial harm as a result of Bentley’s commission of armed robbery. At Bentley’s
plea hearing, he admitted, under oath, that Lutz was the victim in the case. Bentley confirmed
that, as a result of the armed robbery, Lutz was shot in the neck, was hospitalized for approximately
two weeks, was in a coma for five days, had two broken vertebrae and two broken ribs, and had to
relearn to walk and talk. Lutz, therefore, suffered a direct physical injury as a result of Bentley’s
commission of armed robbery. Lutz further suffered a direct financial harm as a result of Bentley’s
criminal conduct. Lutz received a bill from Lakeland Health Hospital in the amount of
$155,569.54 and a debt owed to Sun Coast Anesthesiology appeared on his credit report in the
amount of $680. These bills reflect the cost of the required care during his recovery from the
injuries that he sustained during Bentley’s armed robbery. On the basis of this physical and
financial harm, Lutz was properly considered a victim under the CVRA and the general restitution
statute.

        Second, Bentley’s reliance on MCL 780.752(3) is misplaced. Under the CVRA, “[a]n
individual who is charged with a crime arising out of the same transaction from which the charge
against the defendant arose is not eligible to exercise the privileges and rights established for
victims . . . .” MCL 780.752(3). This Court has not previously addressed the interpretation of
“arising out of the same transaction” under the CVRA. However, in other contexts, this Court has
held that actions arise from the same transaction or occurrence “only if each arises from the
identical events leading to the other . . . .” Wayne Co Prosecutor v Parole Bd, 210 Mich App 148,
156; 532 NW2d 899 (1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Kloian v Schwartz,
272 Mich App 232, 243; 725 NW2d 671 (2006) (stating the same). We now adopt and apply this
framework for MCL 780.752(3).

                                                -6-
         Lutz was charged for his drug-related activity in connection with the armed robbery, but
the charges were ultimately dismissed. Putting aside the fact that Lutz’s charges were ultimately
dropped, the charge would not preclude Lutz from the restitution awarded in this case because
Lutz’s drug-related charge did not arise out of the same transaction as Bentley’s conviction:
namely, the armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The event leading to Lutz’s
since-dismissed drug charge was his involvement in drug-related activities. The event leading to
Bentley’s charge (and Lutz’s injuries) was the execution of his plan to steal 1½ pounds of
marijuana. Although Lutz’s drug-related activity may have set the stage for Bentley’s armed
robbery, Bentley’s actions caused a significant detour in the events leading up to the incident such
that the two charges did not arise out of the same transaction. The text and context of MCL
780.752(3) does not bar someone in Lutz’s position from restitution. Rather, it would bar Bentley
or one of his codefendants from recovering restitution against each other, had one of them been
shot during the robbery they committed. Here, Lutz’s potential (or even likely) involvement in an
illegal activity separate from the armed robbery does not have any bearing on his status as a victim
of Bentley’s armed robbery for the purposes of restitution.

   C. RESTITUTION AWARD WAS BASED ON ACTUAL, NONSPECULATIVE LOSS

        Bentley’s primary argument is that the prosecution failed to satisfy its burden of showing
by a preponderance of the evidence that Lutz suffered an actual, nonspeculative loss. We disagree.

        As stated, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim
suffered an actual loss. In re White, 330 Mich App at 483. And to the extent that the loss was
medical bills, losses covered by health insurance are not included in restitution. See Corbin, 312
Mich App at 360. At the restitution hearing, defense counsel argued that, because Lakeland Health
Hospital was not actively pursuing collection from Lutz’s bill, the invoice was neither an actual
nor expected debt, and, therefore, not a loss. The trial court properly rejected this argument,
finding that, regardless of Lakeland Health Hospital’s failure to pursue collection, Lutz was
nonetheless indebted to Lakeland Health Hospital. Indeed, as the trial court noted, a bill is the
typical manner in which businesses communicate to clients that a debt is owed for services. Lutz’s
obligation to pay for these services will continue until the bill is paid in full. There is no language
in either the CVRA or the general restitution statute that requires a victim to have already paid the
debt owed in order for it to properly be considered a loss. Lutz’s debt (and therefore his loss)
exists whether Lakeland attempts to collect or not. Therefore, because the medical bills that Lutz
received were a result of the care that he required to recover from injuries that he sustained as a
result of Bentley’s criminal conduct, the debt that Lutz owes was a loss for purposes of restitution.

          Relatedly, Bentley argues that the restitution order is speculative because the medical bills
were nearly four years old at the restitution hearing and no evidence was presented that Lakeland
Health Hospital intended to collect the debt that Lutz owed—effectively the debt was forgiven.
The amount of restitution ordered by the trial court was reasonably ascertained by Lutz’s medical
bills. Bentley’s primary contention was that, without proper authentication and updated billing
statements, there was no means of guaranteeing that Lutz continued to owe Lakeland Health
Hospital money. Lutz testified that Lakeland Health Hospital never sent him an updated bill, nor
followed up with him to inquire about making payments on the bill. However, as discussed earlier,
a bill is a typical manner in which businesses indicate to clients that a debt is owed. It is reasonable

                                                  -7-
for Lutz to believe that, until given notice otherwise, the bill is outstanding and he continues to be
obligated to pay it.

       This argument implicates the purposes of restitution as contemplated by the CVRA and
repeatedly stated by this Court, most recently in People v Lee, 314 Mich App at 276-277:5

         As noted by this Court in Dimoski, 286 Mich App at 480-481; 780 NW2d 896, with
         regard to MCL 780.766(8):

                       In People v Washpun, 175 Mich App 420, 425-426; 438
                NW2d 305 (1989), this Court explained the two purposes of the
                provision as follows:

                         Two purposes behind the Legislature’s inclusion of MCL
                780.766(10) may be fairly readily discerned. One apparent
                legislative intent behind subsection (10) is to avoid ordering
                restitution which would doubly compensate a victim. The
                abhorrence of double compensation is well established in our
                jurisprudence. The Legislature wanted to place the financial burden
                of crime on the criminal, while fully, but not overly, compensating
                the victim and reimbursing any third party, such as an insurer, who
                compensated the victim on an interim basis.

                                                * * *

                        The second principal effect of subsection (10) would seem
                to be to prevent application of the “collateral source doctrine” to
                crime victims’ restitution situations. Without such a statutory
                directive, the victim could recoup damages from the criminal
                without regard to previous payment from insurance companies or
                other ancillary sources. By enacting subsection (10), the Legislature
                limits restitution to those who have losses which are, as of the time

5
    MCL 780.766(10) was the predecessor to MCL 780.766(8) and provided:
                 The court shall not order restitution with respect to a loss for which the
         victim or victim’s estate has received or is to receive compensation, including
         insurance, except that the court may, in the interest of justice, order restitution to
         the crime victims compensation board or to any person who has compensated the
         victim or victim’s estate for such a loss to the extent that the crime victims
         compensation board or the person paid the compensation. An order of restitution
         shall require that all restitution to a victim or victim’s estate under the order be
         made before any restitution to any other person under that order is made. [MCL
         780.766(10), as enacted by 1985 PA 87. See also Dimoski, 286 Mich App at 480.]

                                                  -8-
               restitution is paid, still out of pocket. [Cleaned up; footnote from
               Lee omitted.]

        In Lee, this Court upheld a restitution award where the defendant, a loan officer, pleaded
no contest to a false-pretenses charge related to a mortgage-fraud scheme. Lee, 314 Mich App at
270-271, citing MCL 750.218(5)(a). The bank sold the fraudulently obtained loans to investors,
but subsequently repurchased the loans at a substantial loss due to nonpayment. Id. at 270. The
bank then foreclosed on the property securing the loans, taking ownership after making a full-
credit bid at a sheriff’s sale. Id. It later resold the property. Id. This Court, relying largely on the
aforementioned purposes of restitution, held that the bank’s repurchase of the property through a
full-credit bid at a sheriff’s sale did not foreclose restitution. Id. at 272-277.

         Likewise, here, we find no statutory authority that excludes Lutz from the restitution
framework on the basis that the hospital might have forgiven his debt or that he might have had
insurance. These bases require speculation and require us to ignore the evidence presented to the
trial court that Lutz has incurred a real medical debt, and insurance will not cover it. See Corbin,
312 Mich App at 361. Ultimately, as a victim under the CVRA, Lutz was entitled to full restitution
for the loss that he sustained as a result of Bentley’s criminal conduct. In this case, the trial court
ordered restitution supported by the Lakeland Health Hospital bill and credit report indicating a
bill owed to Sun Coast Anesthesiology, which were found to be authentic by the trial court. We
are satisfied that these documents provided “a reasonably certain factual foundation for [the]
restitution amount . . . .” Corbin, 312 Mich App at 365. Therefore, the statutory standard of
reasonableness was met. Regardless of whether Lutz made any payments toward the bills or
whether Lakeland Health Hospital actively pursued collection of the debt owed, the bills allowed
the trial court to reasonably ascertain the amount owed in restitution. As a result, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion when it ordered $156,849.54 in restitution.

        Finally, we observe that the CVRA also permits a court to amend a restitution order on a
motion by the defendant “based upon new information related to the injury, damages, or loss for
which the restitution was ordered.” MCL 780.766(22). Therefore, if Lakeland Health Hospital
were to forgive Lutz’s obligation to pay his bill, Bentley could move to amend the restitution award
to reflect that.

       We affirm.

                                                               /s/ Noah P. Hood
                                                               /s/ Kathleen A. Feeney
                                                               /s/ Michelle M. Rick

                                                  -9-