Cited by

After this initial “burden of production” is satisfied, “[t]he burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense and the appropriateness of a particular type of restitution is on the prosecution.” Id.; see 5 (noting that the burden shifts to the state to prove the amount of loss “only after an offender meets the threshold burden of raising a specific objection by affidavit”).

3(a) (2018); d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2000).

If the defendant carries these burdens, the burde n shifts to the state to “demonstrat[e] the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense and the appropriateness of a particular type of restitution.” Id.; see also State v. Thole , (reiterating these statutory burdens).

Consider ing this statute, we explained that the 9 restitution statute requires “that the offender fully plead his or her position in the affidavit” and pointed to “the legislature’s insistence that the affidavit be ‘detailed.’”

(citing Keehn, d at 407).

“[W]hether a particular item of restitution fits within the statutory definition is a question of law and is fully reviewable by the appellate court.”

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 challenging restitution).

See Johnson, d at 64 (declining to consider a restitution argument raised for the first time on appeal); -36 (Minn. App. 2000) (refusing to apply plain-error review to objections not included in the offender’s affidavit challenging restitution).

” State v. Thole , (summarizing offender’s burdens set forth in Minn. Stat. § 611A.045 , subd.

for the proposition that a "sentencing issue raised for the first time on appeal is reviewed for plain error.” While this court in Thomas applied the plain-error test where an appellant challenged the constitutionality of his sentence for the first time on appeal, d at 327-28 , is more on point.

In State v. Thole, this court stated, “Under the plain language of the [restitution] statute, a valid dispute arises only after an offender meets the threshold burden of raising a specific objection by affidavit.”

Under section 611A.045, a valid dispute “arises only after an offender meets the threshold burden of raising a specific objection by affidavit.”

But determining whether an item meets the statutory requirements for restitution is a question of law that is “fully reviewable by the appellate court.”

Id.; -35 (Minn.App.2000).