State v. Mooers & Becker: orders of complete restitution are separately appealable from a criminal sentence, but court-ordered restitution is not separately appealable

“We therefore treat court-ordered restitution in the plea in abeyance context as a condition of the plea rather than part of the sentence, which may or may not ever be entered.”State v. Mooers, 2017 UT 36, ¶ 19, 424 P.3d 1, 6

The issue in this case was whether an order of complete restitution that is part of a plea in abeyance is a final order appealable as of right. Each defendant was appealing the restitution they were ordered to pay as part of their plea in abeyance. The State argued that a district court's order of restitution is not final for a plea in abeyance because the defendant has been neither convicted nor sentenced, and it is the sentence that triggers the time for appeal. The defendants argued that because conviction and restitution have separate timeframes and purposes, an order of restitution should be considered final regardless of whether or when a conviction occurs. The court noted that court-ordered restitution is restitution the defendant to pay as a part of the criminal sentence at the time of sentencing or within one year after sentencing, whereas complete restitution is “restitution necessary to compensate a victim for all losses caused by the defendant.” Ultimately, the Court held, that orders of complete restitution are separately appealable from a criminal sentence. “And even though the order of complete restitution is entered on the civil docket, defendants may still appeal the order of complete restitution from their criminal case. . . .” But, “[c]ourt-ordered restitution, in contrast, is not separately appealable because it is a condition of the plea in abeyance, which is not a final order. It is therefore not appealable unless the sentence is entered.”