Restitution, Amount of

State v. Haynes, No. M2022-00828-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 3, 2023). 

This court has held that we review a trial court’s restitution order for an abuse of discretion, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within range sentences reflecting a proper application of the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. State v. Bohanon, No. M2012-02366-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5777254, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., Oct. 25, 2013) (relying on State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012) and State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012)), no perm. app. filed; see also T.C.A. § 40-35- 104(c)(2) (providing that restitution is authorized by the statute governing alternative sentences). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010). While there is no set formula for determining restitution, State v. Johnson, 968 S.W.2d 883, 886 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997), above all, the restitution amount must be reasonable. Smith, 898 S.W.2d at 747.

The trial court made the following findings relevant to the issues on appeal: The court finds specifically that the Defendant has the present and continued future ability to pay restitution . . . . The court finds that the victim has requested, is in need of, has testified to, submitted some documentation of and would reasonably be expected to incur pecuniary loss as a result of her victimization [by] the Defendant such that would necessitate restitution. The court finds that specific documentation for the full amount of restitution the victim requested is insufficient. The court finds that the Defendant shall pay the amount of $42,000 in restitution to the victim in the amount of $500 per month, beginning immediately until paid in full. The court specifically finds that due to the nature of the perpetration on the victim as a minor child, that the victim may reasonably believe her perpetrator would never be held to account to his wrong doing since it was admitted to law enforcement in 1986 without charges being brought, that the victim suffered mentally and emotionally as a result of her abuse, and the shear passage of time has been prohibitive on the victim in documenting specific damages for the past 40 years. This court finds it reasonable to expect as both a victim and offender that someone may incur $1,000 a year in damages for treatment and prescriptions medication as a result of such abuse that the victim suffered.

State v. Cole, No. W2022-00656-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 30, 2023). 

This court reviews a trial court’s restitution order under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. Cavin, — S.W.3d —, 2023 WL 3879891, at *4. “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010).

State v. Conley, No. E2022-00237-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 31, 2023). 

Issues regarding restitution are reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Byron Cole Tucker, No. M2021-00839-CCA- R3-CD, 2022 WL 2308988, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 28, 2022), no perm. app. filed (citing State v. David Allan Bohanon, No. M2012-02366-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5777254, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 25, 2013)). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Raymond Brandon Saffles, No. E2020-01116-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 4075030, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 8, 2021) (quoting State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010)), no perm. app. filed.

State v. Thomas, No. M2021-00817-CCA-R3-CD, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 13, 2022). 

When a defendant challenges the restitution amount ordered by the trial court, this Court will utilize an abuse of discretion standard of review with a presumption that the trial court’s ruling was reasonable. See State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 279 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. David Allen Bohanon, No. M2012-02366-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5777254, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 25, 2013), no perm. app. filed (concluding that “the appropriate standard of review for restitution orders is the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness”). A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). Furthermore, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the impropriety of the sentence. See T.C.A. § 40-35-401 (2019), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts; State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn.1991).