Cited by

The state cites State v. Alexander , , for the proposition that a district court sufficiently considers a defendant’s ability to pay if the PSI contains information regarding the defendant’s income, resources, and obligations.

-44 (Minn. App. 2014) (explaining that testimony from car-dealership employee regarding damages to car provided sufficient support for district court’s restitution award).

“Appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations.”

And “[a]ppellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations.” 1 But a district court’s discretion is not unfettered—instead, it is “constrained by the statutory requirements” set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045 (2024), which outlines the procedure for issuing restitution orders.

See, e.g., State v. Paludicki , - 68 (Minn. 2007) (evidence provided by the record); (evidence found in restitution payment schedule); (evidence provided by the PSI and the defendant’s statement); (reversing and remanding because there was no PSI and no defendant’s statement to provide evidence), rev. denied, (Minn. Apr.

Moreover, “Minnesota courts have uphel d restitution orders even when the appellant may not be able to pay the restitution amount.” State v. Alexander , - 45 (Minn. App. 2014) (listing cases affirming restitution awards where the defendant is in prison, ordered to pay restitut ion from prison earnings, or unable to pay the entire restitution award).

(finding proper consideration of the defendant’s ability the public defender application during the restitution hearing or in its restitution order.

“We review an order to reimburse the costs expended by a public defender for abuse of discretion.”

There is no strict requirement regarding how the district court should address a defendant’s ability to pay, but courts must be specific in defining the terms of restitution, State v. Hanninen , review denied (Minn. Sept.

See State v. Alexander , -45 13 (Minn. App. 2014) ( concluding that the district court’s consideration of a pre sentence investigation that addressed the defendant’s financial situation was adequate to demonstrate the court considered the defendant’s ability to pay restitution).

Warehouse Sys., LLC, see also State v. Alexander , (holding that a statute directing district courts to determine the amount of restitution based on victim’s loss and defendant’s ability to pay did not authorize district courts to order a defendant to sell personal property to pay restitution).

-45 (Minn. App. 2014) (explaining the district court’s need to consider the harm and loss to the victims when ordering restitution) (citations omitted); (explaining that a district court does not need to issue specific findings on the defendant’s ability t

There is no direction in the statute as to how the district court shall consider each factor; however, “Minnesota courts have upheld restitution orders even when the appellant may not be able to pay the restitution amount.”

(stating that “[appellant]’s attempt to retry his case by asking us to reevaluate [witness] credibility is contrary to our role”); (“Appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations.”).

See, (presentence investigation report); (victim-impact statement), review denied (Minn. Feb.