Wimpey v. State

The totality of defendant's presentation regarding her expenses while the trial court was attempting to fashion a payment schedule for a $120,163.40 restitution order was that she ' "would just have to make payments over the course of time." '

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On January 6, 2004, Lauren Wimpey pled guilty to a single count of theft by taking OCGA § 16-8-2 for stealing money from her employer, Sunset Land, Inc. d/b/a/ Central Feed and Seed, between January 1, 2000 and April 15, 2002. On the same date, the trial court sentenced Wimpey to 15 years probation under the First Offender Act OCGA § 42-8-60 and ordered her to pay $120,163.40 in restitution to Central Feed and Seed and to make monthly payments of $700 towards this amount. Thereafter, on February 11, 2004, the trial court issued a written restitution order providing for the same restitution amount and payment schedule. Wimpey appeals from the restitution order, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to consider the factors set forth in OCGA § 17-14-10 and failing to issue written findings as to each of these factors. Finding that Wimpey failed to respond to the court’s inquiry as to her financial status, we affirm the trial court’s ruling in this matter. See OCGA § 17-14-10 a 3. OCGA § 17-14-7 provides in part that: The burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense shall be on the state. The burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the offender or person being ordered to pay restitution and the financial needs of his or her dependents shall be on the offender or person being ordered to pay restitution. The burden of demonstrating such other matters as the ordering authority deems appropriate shall be upon the party designated by the ordering authority as justice requires. After the State has borne its burden of showing the amount of the victim’s loss, OCGA § 17-14-7 b places the burden of showing the defendant’s resources and expenses on the defendant: “The burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the offender or person being ordered to pay restitution and the financial needs of his or her dependents shall be on the offender or person being ordered to pay restitution.”

See Cheeks v. State. 1

Wimpey v. State

The totality of defendant's presentation regarding her expenses while the trial court was attempting to fashion a payment schedule for a $120,163.40 restitution order was that she ' "would just have to make payments over the course of time." '

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report