from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest
Judicial District, the Honorable Paul W. Jacobson, Judge.
K. Madden, Assistant State's Attorney, Williston, North
Dakota, for plaintiff and appellee.
A. Gulya, Watford City, North Dakota, for defendant and
1] Kevin Sanchez appeals from an order requiring that he pay
$14, 526.62 in restitution to victims of his theft crimes.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in
extending its self-imposed deadline for scheduling or holding
a restitution hearing and in ordering restitution, we affirm.
2] In 2017 Sanchez was convicted of several counts of theft
of property in Williams County, and the criminal judgments
stated that "[r]estitution may be determined at a later
date." In September 2017 Sanchez moved for return of
property and a determination of restitution. On September 29,
2017, the district court ordered the return of his property
"and that a stipulation regarding restitution be filed
or a hearing on the same be scheduled within thirty (30) days
of the date of this Order."
3] On October 27, 2017, the State moved to set a hearing for
restitution, and on November 9, 2017, the district court
through its calendar control clerk set a hearing for December
18, 2017. On December 11, 2017, Sanchez moved to dismiss the
restitution proceeding because:
The 30 days this Court allowed the parties to have
restitution to be resolved and settled "Determined"
has expired, no extension of time has been requested or
granted by this Court. Further, it would seem that it would
be outside the jurisdiction of this Court to effect any
changes to the Criminal Judgment.
the hearing was postponed, on January 8, 2018, the court,
before the State responded, denied Sanchez's motion
without explanation. A hearing was eventually held on January
24, 2018. Sanchez stipulated that he owed the victims the
amount sought by the State and the court ordered him to pay
restitution in the amount of $14, 526.62.
4] Sanchez argues no restitution should have been assessed
because a hearing was not scheduled or held before the
district court's 30-day deadline expired.
5] A district court may retain jurisdiction to address
restitution after a sentence is imposed. See
State v. Hatlewick, 2005 ND 125, ¶¶ 12-1
5, 700 N.W.2d 717; see also State v.
Putney, 2016 ND 135, ¶ 4, 881 N.W.2d 663. In
State v. Carson, 2017 ND 196, ¶ 5, 900 N.W.2d
41, we explained:
When reviewing a restitution order, we look to whether the
district court acted "within the limits set by
statute," which is a standard similar to our abuse of
discretion standard. State v. Gill, 2004 ND 137,
¶ 5, 681 N.W.2d 832. "A district court abuses its
discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of
a rational mental process leading ...