Court Opinion

ID: 9927630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 17:04:20.639066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:58.465400
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              Jan 29 2024, 8:40 am

                                                                                  CLERK
                                                                              Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                 Court of Appeals
                                                                                   and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Amanda O. Blackketter                                      Theodore E. Rokita
Blackketter Law, LLC                                       Attorney General of Indiana
Shelbyville, Indiana
                                                           George P. Sherman
                                                           Supervising Deputy Attorney
                                                           General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mamoon Anwarzai,                                           January 29, 2024
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-CR-1634
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Shelby Circuit
                                                           Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Trent E. Meltzer,
Appellee-Plaintiff.                                        Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           73C01-2112-F4-26

                                Opinion by Judge Mathias
                           Judges Tavitas and Weissmann concur.

Mathias, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1634 | January 29, 2024                            Page 1 of 6
[1]   Mamoon Anwarzai appeals the Shelby Circuit Court’s order that he pay

      $37,000 in restitution following his guilty plea to Level 4 felony burglary.

      Anwarzai raises two issues for our review, which we restate as the following

      three issues:

              1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the
              amount of restitution.

              2. Whether the trial court’s assessment that Anwarzai has the
              ability to pay the restitution amount is supported by the evidence.

              3. Whether the trial court erred when it did not fix the manner of
              payment Anwarzai is to make to satisfy the restitution order.

[2]   We affirm and remand with instructions.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   On September 4, 2021, Anwarzai broke into the home of Toby and Tyler

      Delgadillo in Shelby County, accessed a safe there, and stole cash out of the

      safe. The State charged Anwarzai with several offenses, and, in June 2023,

      Anwarzai pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony burglary. The State dismissed the

      other charges in exchange for Anwarzai’s plea. Anwarzai’s written plea

      agreement provided that Anwarzai would, as a condition of his probation, pay

      restitution to the Delgadillos in an amount to be determined at sentencing.

[4]   The trial court accepted Anwarzai’s guilty plea and heard evidence on the

      amount for restitution. In particular, Tyler and Toby both testified that

      Anwarzai stole $37,000 in cash out of the safe. Tr. pp. 27-28, 37. The court also
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1634 | January 29, 2024         Page 2 of 6
      received the pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”) without objection. The

      PSI showed that Anwarzai had a stable employment history and currently

      earned $18.75 per hour working as a supervisor at an Indianapolis Lowe’s, for

      which he worked “40 plus” hours per week. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 35.

[5]   Based on that evidence, the trial court ordered Anwarzai to pay restitution to

      Toby Delgadillo in the amount of $37,000. However, the trial court’s restitution

      order did not provide any instructions on how Anwarzai was to pay the

      restitution in a manner consistent with Anwarzai’s means. See id. at 52. This

      appeal ensued.

      Standard of Review
[6]   Anwarzai appeals the trial court’s restitution order. An order of restitution is a

      matter within the trial court’s sound discretion and will be reversed only upon a

      showing of an abuse of that discretion. Archer v. State, 81 N.E.3d 212, 215 (Ind.

      2017). An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic

      and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable,

      probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. E.g., Owen v. State, 210

      N.E.3d 256, 269 (Ind. 2023).

      1. The State presented sufficient evidence to support the
      amount of restitution.
[7]   Anwarzai first argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to

      support the award of $37,000 in restitution. Tyler and Toby both testified that

      Anwarzai stole $37,000 in cash out of the safe inside their home. Tr. pp. 27-28,

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1634 | January 29, 2024       Page 3 of 6
      37. Their testimony is sufficient to support the restitution amount. See, e.g.,

      Smith v. State, 990 N.E.2d 517, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that the

      victim’s testimony as to his losses was sufficient evidence to support the amount

      of restitution), trans. denied. Anwarzai’s arguments to the contrary on this issue

      are merely requests for this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not

      do.

      2. The trial court’s assessment that Anwarzai has the ability to
      pay the restitution amount is within the evidence.
[8]   Anwarzai next asserts that the trial court failed to inquire into his ability to pay

      the restitution amount. When, as here, restitution is ordered as a condition of

      probation, the trial court must inquire into the defendant’s ability to pay the

      restitution. Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770, 773 (Ind. 2008). Although the trial

      court did not explicitly ask Anwarzai about his ability to pay, and did not

      explicitly find that Anwarzai has the ability to pay the restitution amount,

      Anwarzai does not allege error in either of those respects. Rather, his argument

      here is that the evidence does not support the trial court’s implicit finding of his

      ability to pay.

[9]   We do not agree. Our Supreme Court has held that, where “presentence

      materials provided the trial judge with, inter alia, [the defendant’s] family

      history, marital history, educational background, work history, health status,

      employment status, and financial information,” the trial court has the

      information it needs to determine the defendant’s ability to pay. Savage v. State,

      650 N.E.2d 1156, 1164 (Ind. Ct. App.) (Sullivan, J., dissenting), adopted, 655
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1634 | January 29, 2024        Page 4 of 6
       N.E.2d 1223, 1224 (Ind. 1995). Here, the PSI provided that information to the

       trial court, and that information included Anwarzai’s employment history and

       earning ability. And that evidence showed that Anwarzai had a stable

       employment history and currently made $18.75 per hour as a supervisor at

       Lowe’s, where he worked forty-plus hours per week. That evidence is sufficient

       to support at least some ability to pay the restitution amount, and therefore the

       trial court’s conclusion that Anwarzai has the ability to pay the restitution is

       within the evidence before the court.

       3. The trial court erred when it did not fix a periodic payment
       amount toward the restitution amount that Anwarzai can or
       will be able to afford.
[10]   Last, Anwarzai contends, and the State concedes, that the trial court’s

       restitution order fails to fix a periodic payment amount for him to pay off the

       restitution based on what Anwarzai can or will be able to afford. See Pearson,

       883 N.E.2d at 773-74; Savage, 655 N.E.2d at 1225. We also agree, and we

       remand to the trial court with instructions for it to determine a periodic

       payment amount that Anwarzai can make toward the restitution, which

       amount shall be consistent with an amount that he can or will be able to afford.

[11]   In doing so, we emphasize that the prorated periodic payment amount must be

       based on the amount Anwarzai can or will be able to afford and need not be

       based on the term of Anwarzai’s probationary period. See Pearson, 883 N.E.2d

       at 773 (“the expiration of a probationary period does not terminate an

       obligation to make restitution to a crime victim”). Indeed, Indiana Code section

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1634 | January 29, 2024         Page 5 of 6
       35-50-5-3(a) (2023) provides that restitution may be ordered as a condition of

       probation, as was done here. And section 35-50-5-3(b) makes clear that, when

       restitution is made a condition of probation, it “is a judgment lien” that may be

       enforced “in the same manner as a judgment lien created in a civil proceeding,”

       which includes allowing the defendant’s victim to enforce the restitution order

       in proceedings supplemental.

       Conclusion
[12]   For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s restitution order but remand

       with instructions for the court to fix a periodic payment amount based on what

       Anwarzai can or will be able to afford.

[13]   Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

       Tavitas, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1634 | January 29, 2024       Page 6 of 6