Jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal a restitution order

Holding that it did not have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal the restitution order, the court dismissed this appeal. In 2014, defendant pled no contest to one count of larceny of a vehicle causing damage. “The trial court imposed a sentence of time served plus 60 months’ probation. [It] also tentatively set restitution at $13,624, and then increased it to $70,439 after a restitution hearing.” In 2022, he pled guilty to violating his probation. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced him to serve 20 to 60 months. He appealed the 2014 restitution order by leave granted. Although it was undisputed that he timely challenged the 5/22 order as it related “to the revocation of probation, the issues raised in this appeal concern only the 2014 restitution order.” Defendant argued that the court “has jurisdiction to consider his challenges to the 2014 restitution order because ‘the restitution order is a subordinate part of the underlying judgment of sentence.’” The court disagreed. His “new criminal conduct occasioned revisiting his status as a probationer or prisoner, but had no bearing on the issue of restitution.” He remained “responsible to fulfill the order of restitution from his 2014 sentence; that facet of his sentence was not obviated or supplanted by the 2022 sentence for his probation violation.” Thus, the court dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.