Opinion
A22-0963
03-15-2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Demarea Dajour Clay, Appellant.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-20-2691
Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
MICHELLE A. LARKIN, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Demarea Dajour Clay pleaded guilty to second-degree intentional murder. The district court sentenced Clay to serve 450 months in prison. The district court also ordered Clay to pay restitution in the amount of $14,077.27 to the Minnesota Crime Victim's Reparation's Board. Clay challenges the restitution order.
2. This court reviews a district court's restitution order for an abuse of discretion, but that discretion is constrained by Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd.1(a) (2022), which requires the district court to consider a defendant's "income, resources, and obligations" when ordering restitution. State v. Wigham, 967 N.W.2d 657, 662 (Minn. 2021). In Wigham, the Minnesota Supreme Court announced the rule that "[w]hen ordering restitution under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1 . . ., a district court must expressly state, either orally or in writing, that it considered the defendant's income, resources, and obligations." Id. at 659 (syllabus by the court). "The district court need not make express findings about the defendant's income, resources, and obligations, but the record must include sufficient evidence about the defendant's income, resources, and obligations to allow a district court to consider the defendant's ability to pay the amount of restitution ordered." Id. Although the district court must consider the defendant's ability to pay, the court is not required to limit the amount of restitution to an amount that the defendant can afford. Id. at 664 n.4; see State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652, 663-64 (Minn. 2001) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court stated that it considered the defendant's ability to pay and ordered $32,682.93 in restitution to be paid from prison earnings, even though the defendant was indigent, incarcerated, and unable to pay the total amount).
3. Clay argues, and respondent State of Minnesota agrees, that the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution without expressly stating that it considered Clay's ability to pay restitution. Because the district court did not expressly state that it considered Clay's ability to pay, as required under Wigham, we reverse and remand the restitution order. See Wigham, 967 N.W.2d at 666 (remanding to the district court for further proceedings on restitution "because the district court did not expressly state that it considered Wigham's ability to pay").
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order for restitution is reversed and remanded to the district court for consideration of Clay's ability to pay, as required under Minn. Stat. § 611A, subd. 1, and Wigham, 967 N.W.2d at 664.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.