Restitution; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 24; In re Lampart; Restitution under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (MCL 780.751 et seq.); People v. Fawaz; Determination of restitution; MCL 780.767(1) & (4); People v. Grant; People v. Avignone; Presentence Investigation Report (PSIR); Department of Corrections (DOC)

The court held that trial court erred in ordering restitution without holding a hearing to determine the amount. The defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree retail fraud for stealing merchandise from a home improvement store. The PSIR recommended that he be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,030.84. Defendant objected to that recommendation on the ground that the merchandise in question was ultimately returned. The prosecution could not produce a witness to contest his assertion, but stated that it would submit evidence supporting the requested restitution amount. The trial court ordered that he “pay restitution in an amount to be determined, within a period of 90 days.” Four months later, the DOC submitted a case report to the trial court stating that restitution had been determined in the amount of $1,030.84 and requesting that the judgment of sentence be amended to reflect that restitution amount. The trial court then entered an amended judgment of sentence specifying that amount in the restitution order. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in ordering restitution without holding a hearing to determine the amount. The prosecution conceded this error. “[T]he prosecution initially suggested $1,030.84 in restitution on the basis of the value of the property that defendant stole from the home improvement store, but the parties agree that defendant raised a sufficient objection to the proposed amount of loss at sentencing to trigger the trial court’s obligation to hold a hearing to determine the amount. Because there was no such hearing, the record is devoid of evidentiary support for the restitution award.” Vacated and remanded.