State v. Murphy and Restitution for Unconvicted Conduct

In 2010, I wrote a post asking, “Can a defendant be ordered to pay restitution based on offenses that did not result in a conviction?” The court of appeals answered that question this week in State v. Murphy. That old post from 8 years ago began with a hypothetical, asking what would happen if a defendant broke into 10 different houses but was convicted—perhaps as part of a plea—of only three counts. Could the defendant be required to make restitution to the victims from the other seven houses? I almost got it on the nose—I just reversed the convictions and the dismissals. In Murphy, the defendant allegedly broke into 10 houses. He pled guilty to seven counts and the State dismissed three. The court ordered restitution to the victims of all the alleged break-ins, including those residing at the three houses for which charges were dismissed. The defendant stipulated to the total restitution amount, which was north of $23,000. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay restitution to the victims of the dismissed charges. The court of appeals agreed. Under G.S. 15A-1340.34, the court said, restitution is ordered for defendants “convicted” of a criminal offense. And though the guilty plea and probation statutes (G.S. 15A-1021(c) and 15A-1343(d), respectively) refer to “offenses committed” instead of convictions, the court concluded that “restitution is securely tied to the losses attributable to the offenses of conviction.” Slip op. at 8. The court seemed to allow some flexibility [...]