Cited by

“The record must provide the [district] court with a factual basis to award restitution.”

“The record must provide the court with a factual basis to award restitution.”

4 This requirement is consistent with the principle that “[c]laims raised for the first time on appeal to this court are generally considered forfeited.” (“Johnson’s failure to raise the issue below did not give the district court an opportunity to clarify the restitution order .

(acknowledging that a defendant’s challenge to the district court’s statutory authority to order restitution was not properly preserved), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

Under Minnesota’s restitution statute, a restitution request from a victim “may include, but is not limited to, any out-of-pocket losses resulting from the crime.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 611A.04).

“The record must provide the court with a factual basis to award restitution.”

(holding that failure to raise issue in district court precludes consideration on appeal); -83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consi

“The primary purpose of restitution is to ‘restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.’” ().

(declining to consider a restitution argument raised for the first time on appeal).

3(b), and appellate courts will not consider restitution arguments raised for the first time on appeal, (declining to consider a re stitution argument raised for the first time on appeal).

(declining to consider a restitution argument raised for the first time on appeal).

4 (declining to consider a restitution argument raised for the first time on appeal); (declining to create an exception that would permit an offender to circumvent his own failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for challengi

“The record must provide the [district] court with a factual basis to award restitution.” State v. Johnson

17, 1996); (vacating restitution award and remanding for further fact-finding when record contained no evi dence to support damage claim).

See, d 60, 65 (Minn. 2014) (“ Whether Minnesota law permits courts to order joint and several liability for restitution is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”).

“The record must provide the [district] court with a factual basis to award restitution.”

See, ; (explaining that restitution ordered for damage to vehicle must be supported by the record).

I. “The primary purpose of restitution is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” (quotation omitted).

“The record must provide the [district] court with a factual basis to award restitution.”

“The primary purpose of restitution is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” State 9 v. Johnson

But “when a victim sustains indivisible loss from multiple defendants’ actions, the sentencing court has the authority to order restitution based on joint and several liability.”

“The primary purpose of restitution is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” d 60, 65 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

(“Generally, we will not consider arguments that are made for the first time on appeal.”).

Accordingly, the court had the statutory authority to issue a restitution order after the sentencing hearing.7 66 (Minn. 2014) (affirming a restitution order issued 8 years after defendant’s sentencing hearing).

“The primary purpose of restitution is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”

-65 (Minn.2014) (concluding that the State did not meet its burden of establishing the amount of damage the defendant caused to the victim’s car); -64 (Minn.2001) (concluding that the restitution amount imposed by the district court was not an abuse of discretion in light of the

“The record must provide the court with a factual basis to award restitution.”