Wilder v. State

The Court vacated the trial court's restitution order and remanded the case for clarification of whether it improperly included any restitution amounts based on nolle prossed charges.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Richard Keith Wilder was convicted of forgery1 after entering a guilty plea pursuant to Alford v. North Carolina .2 The trial court entered a restitution order from which Wilder now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the order of restitution and remand with direction. The proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the ordering authority by the preponderance of the evidence. And the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense shall be on the State. On review of a restitution order, the appellate court has the duty of reviewing the transcript to determine whether each party has met his or her specified burden and determining whether a restitution award was supported by the preponderance of the evidence.3 So viewed, the record reveals that Wilder was indicted on two counts of first degree forgery for allegedly forging the names of two previous owners on a motor vehicle title and one count of alteration of an odometer.4 Wilder agreed to plead guilty to one of the two forgery charges in exchange for the State moving for entry of an order of nolle prosequi as to the remaining forgery charge and the alteration of an odometer charge. At the guilty plea hearing, the State contended that Wilder sold a used vehicle to Andrea Berlin with a forged signature of a previous owner and an incorrect odometer for $7,900. The car immediately showed signs of disrepair, and Berlin invested $3,574 in repairs before attempting to resell the vehicle to another used car establishment, which offered her $1,700 for the vehicle.

At the guilty plea hearing, the State asked for a separate hearing on restitution and argued that the amount would be significant. During the plea colloquy, Wilder testified that he understood that there was restitution at issue in the case, and he would be required to pay the amount that the trial court would determine at the later hearing.

Wilder v. State

The Court vacated the trial court's restitution order and remanded the case for clarification of whether it improperly included any restitution amounts based on nolle prossed charges.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report