This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-0596
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Louis Steven Baratto,
Appellant.
Filed December 29, 2014
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge
Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62CR122770
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and,
John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Laura Rosenthal, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
Reyes, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
REYES, Judge
In this sentencing appeal, appellant argues that the district court abused its
discretion by ordering him to pay $3,875 in restitution for a snowplow appellant has
offered to return and the amount of which resulted in a windfall to the victim. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Louis Baratto pleaded guilty to theft of a motor vehicle in violation of
Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17) (2010). The victim, J.S., filed a restitution affidavit
seeking $5,141.30. This amount included $1,266.30 for repair costs to the vehicle and
$3,875.00 for a snowplow appellant removed from the vehicle. On August 24, 2012,
appellant was sentenced to 17 months in prison with execution stayed and five years of
probation. Appellant was also ordered to pay $5,141.30 in restitution. Appellant did not
challenge restitution or the restitution amount.
On November 4, 2013, appellant appeared for a probation violation hearing after
failing to pay any of the restitution. At this hearing, appellant admitted failing to pay
restitution but indicated that he had J.S.’s snowplow and wanted to return it. The
prosecuting attorney agreed that would be appropriate. Based on this information, the
district court ordered appellant to contact the county attorney’s office to return the
snowplow to J.S. and amended the restitution amount to $1,266.411 after deducting
$3,875.00 for the cost of the snowplow. J.S. was not present at the hearing.
1
It appears that the district court miscalculated the amount of restitution. The correct
amount should be $1,266.30 ($5,141.30 - $3,875.00 = $1,266.30).
2
A few months later, the state moved to reinstate the original restitution order in the
amount of $5,141.30. A restitution hearing took place on February 3, 2014. At the
hearing, the state explained to the district court that it was mistaken when it informed the
district court that J.S. wanted his snowplow back. J.S. was present at this hearing and
testified that he never agreed to take the snowplow back. J.S. explained that he no longer
owned the vehicle to which the snowplow was attached. J.S. also testified that he only
became aware that appellant wanted to return the snowplow a year and a half later, and
after he had already gifted the vehicle to his son and no longer had a use for it. J.S.
testified he purchased the snowplow in 1993 and that the original price was in the $3,000
range.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court found that it was unreasonable
to require J.S. to accept the snowplow when he no longer had a use for it. The district
court vacated the November 4, 2013 amended order and reinstated its original restitution
order in the amount of $5,141.30.
DECISION
Appellant argues the district court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to
pay the victim $3,875.00 in restitution for a snowplow when appellant offered to return
the snowplow. “[District] courts are given broad discretion in awarding restitution.”
State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn. 1999). We review a district’s court order
for restitution under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Nelson, 796 N.W.2d 343,
346 (Minn. App. 2011).
3
After a defendant is convicted of a crime, a victim can request restitution for a
specific loss. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2010). Restitution is primarily intended
to compensate crime victims for their losses by restoring victims to their original
financial condition. State v. Colsch, 579 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn. App. 1998). Once
restitution is requested, the district court shall request information from the victim to
determine the amount of restitution owed, and the victim must itemize and describe the
loss and the reasons justifying the amount claimed. Id.
An offender may request a hearing to challenge the request for restitution but has
the burden to produce evidence challenging requested items of restitution and/or the
amount of requested restitution. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3 (2010). Specifically, he
must challenge the amount of restitution “by requesting a hearing within 30 days of
receiving written notification of the amount of restitution requested, or within 30 days of
sentencing.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b); see also State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d
643, 648-49 (Minn. 2011). An appellant’s failure to object to restitution either during a
plea or sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of challenge to restitution on appeal. See
Mason v. State, 652 N.W.2d 269, 272-73 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Dec.
30, 2002).
Here, appellant did not challenge the requested item of restitution, namely the
snowplow, or the amount of restitution within 30 days of receiving the restitution request
or within 30 days of sentencing. Instead of objecting within the statutory timeframe,
appellant waited almost one and a half years to do so. Appellant did not indicate any
challenge to paying restitution for the snowplow until he appeared before the court for a
4
probation violation hearing relating to his failure to pay restitution. As a result, appellant
waived his right to challenge the restitution item and the amount of restitution ordered.
Even if we were to reach the merits of appellant’s claim, the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it reinstated its previous order requiring appellant to pay for the
loss of the snowplow. Restitution is proper for victim losses which are directly caused by
a defendant’s conduct for which the defendant was convicted. Nelson, 796 N.W.2d at
347. Here, J.S.’s loss of the snowplow was directly caused by appellant’s theft. In the
almost one and a half years that J.S. did not have the snowplow, he did not conduct his
plow business. J.S. no longer has the vehicle that the snowplow was attached to and no
longer has a need for the snowplow. The very reason that J.S. did not have a use for the
snowplow is because it was stolen in the first place and not offered to be returned to him
until much later. It is unreasonable to require J.S. to now accept the snowplow in lieu of
restitution almost one and a half years after it was stolen by appellant.
Affirmed.
5