 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Martinez6/13/2002
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Martinez appeals the trial court's order requiring her to pay restitution to the Workers' Compensation Fund (WCF) in the amount of $14,647. She challenges the sentencing court's "interpretation of the restitution statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201(4)(a)(i) (1999), when it ordered restitution . . . related to criminal conduct for which was not convicted, did not plead guilty, and did not admit responsibility." We remand.
We apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing an order of restitution. See State v. Weeks, 2000 UT App 273, , 12 P.3d 110, cert. granted, 21 P.3d 218 (Utah 2001); State v. Dominguez, 1999 UT App 343, , 992 P.2d 995. However, " e review the trial court's interpretation of a [restitution] statute for correctness and accord no deference to its conclusions of law." State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930, 937 (Utah 1998).
Martinez pleaded guilty to Workers' Compensation Fraud, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-109(2) (1996), which provides in part:
Any person who has intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, devised any scheme or artifice to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage, disability compensation, medical benefits . . . by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or material omissions, and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly communicates or causes a communication with another in furtherance of the scheme or artifice, is guilty of workers' compensation insurance fraud . . . . Id.
Martinez supplemented her guilty plea with a statement of her conduct, stating: "I . . . obtained workers' compensation benefits by working under an assumed name while receiving benefits for being unemployable." (Emphasis added.)
If Martinez's admitted criminal conduct resulted in pecuniary damages to WCF, then the sentencing court correctly applied section 76-3-201(4)(a)(i) and correctly concluded that restitution is appropriate. See State v. Watson, 1999 UT App 273, -5, 987 P.2d 1289 (per curiam). Conversely, if Martinez's admitted criminal conduct bears no relationship to the damages suffered by WCF, then the court erroneously imposed restitution. See id. (requiring that defendant's admitted criminal conduct bear "sufficient nexus" to damages suffered by victim before court may enter restitution order). To determine whether a "sufficient nexus" exists between the defendant's admitted conduct and the claimed pecuniary damages, the sentencing court must determine that "liability is clear as a matter of law and [that] commission of the crime clearly establishes causality of the injury or damages." State v. Robinson, 860 P.2d 979, 983 (Utah Ct. App. 1993).
Martinez's statement ambiguously identifies the conduct that violated the Workers' Compensation Fraud statute because she does not state how her work under an assumed name obtained benefits, or exactly which benefits she "devised . . . to obtain." Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-109(2). She pleaded guilty to a separate charge of attempting to distribute methamphetamine. She did not plead guilty to fraudulently obtaining medical benefits. The record is unclear whether she was not entitled to prescription coverage due to her admitted conduct in working under an assumed name and attempting to distribute methamphetamine. It thus remains unclear whether the court could hold her liable for restitution. See Robinson, 860 P.2d at 983 (requiring that commission of crime must "clearly" establish causality of pecuniary damages suffered by victim); see also Watson, 1999 UT App at ("[The restitution statute] does not ask the trial court to analyze a defendant's state of mind, but rathe
Page 1 2 Utah Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|