Donald McCart appeals from a judgment of restitution entered against him in connection with his conviction for theft by receiving a stolen truck. McCart entered a plea of nolo contendere and was ordered to pay restitution damages in the amount of $5,306.28. He contends the trial court failed to provide required written findings and that the State failed to prove he caused all of the damage to the truck. We hold that written findings are no longer required for awards of restitution to victims of crime under Georgia law. We also find no merit in McCart’s second argument. 1. The award of restitution to victims of crime is now governed by the “Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005,” which became effective on July 1 of that year. Ga. L. 2005, p. 88, § § 1, 8; OCGA § 17-14-1 et seq. In that Act, the General Assembly substantially revised the former code and repealed all conflicting laws. Ga. L. 2005, p. 88, preface, § 9. The previous code governing restitution was enacted in 1980, and section 17-14-8 of that code provided that “before granting any relief the ordering authority —the court or other decision maker1 — shall make a written finding” of one of four specific alternate outcomes: 1 that there are no victims; 2 that restitution is not reasonably possible; 3 that the defendant has agreed to a restitution plan; or 4 that restitution will be ordered. Ga. L. 1980, p. 1382, § 1 § 27-3008. Additionally, Section 17-14-10 provides that in ordering restitution, the ordering authority “shall consider” several economic factors —primarily the damages sustained by the victim and the defendant’s financial resources and responsibilities. That code section, however, has never stated that written findings on the economic factors were required. Yet in 1985, this Court held that before a trial court can order restitution, it must conduct a hearing, consider the factors provided in OCGA § 17-14-10, and make written findings on those factors. Garrett v. State , 175 Ga. App. 400, 401 1 333 SE2d 432 1985.2 We now hold that changes in the relevant law have undermined the reasoning of Garrett .
The Court in Garrett first reasoned that restitution was intended to obviate the need for a civil suit in tort. And because judges holding bench trials on damages in civil actions were required by OCGA § 9-11-52 a to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, the ordering authority should also be required to make such findings in restitution cases. Garrett , 175 Ga. App. at 401 1. In 1987, however, the legislature amended § 9-11-52 a “so as to provide under what conditions findings of fact and conclusions of law must accompany the judgment of a court of record.” Ga. L. 1987, p. 1057, § 1. A party must now request such findings and conclusions. Id.; OCGA § 9-11-52 a.
