Find Legal Information

State v.Daniel McCray
Download as PDF
Back to Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT					Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	1999 ME 151
Docket:	Ken-98-665
Submitted
 on Briefs:	September 15, 1999	
Decided:	October 26, 1999

Panel:WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, and CALKINS, JJ.

STATE OF MAINE

v.

DANIEL McCRAY

RUDMAN, J.

	[¶1]  Daniel McCray appeals from a restitution order entered in the
Superior Court (Kennebec County, Humphrey, J.) after he pled guilty to the
charge of forgery in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 703 (1983 & Supp. 1998)
(Class C).{1}  McCray contends that the court exceeded its sentencing
authority by ordering him to pay restitution for economic loss that did not
result from the specific crime for which he was convicted.  We agree and
vacate the judgment.
	[¶2]  A Kennebec County grand jury indicted McCray for the Class C
offenses of: (1) forgery in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 703 (Count I); and (2)
theft by deception in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (1983) (Count II).  In
Count I, the grand jury charged that McCray, "pursuant to one scheme or
course of conduct, with the intent to defraud, did falsely make, complete,
endorse or alter, or knowingly utter or possess two written instruments
purporting to be checks of the aggregate value of $4,700.00 from the
account of Patricia Holt."  (emphasis added).  By way of plea agreement,
McCray pled guilty to Count I, and the State dismissed Count II.{2} 
Thereafter, the court sentenced McCray to: (1) three years of incarceration,
with all but nine months suspended; and (2) two years of probation, with
special conditions of probation that included a "joint and several" obligation
to pay restitution of $4,700 in full by the eleventh month of probation.
	[¶3]  Prior to the court's acceptance of McCray's guilty plea, the
State represented that it would prove McCray had possession of two forged
checks, the total amount of $4,700 which he deposited in his account at Key 
Bank.  McCray later withdrew $1,500 from that account.  When he
attempted to withdraw the balance, however, the bank refused to make
further disbursements.  Through counsel, McCray acknowledged possession
of the forged instruments and admitted the withdrawal of $1,500.
	[¶4]  The sentencing provisions of Maine's criminal code authorize
restitution as a form of sentencing. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1152(2-A)
(1983 & Supp. 1998).  Whether a sentencing court imposes restitution
directly or as a condition of probation, the court may only require a
convicted criminal to pay restitution pursuant to chapter 54 of Title 17-A. 
See State v. O'Donnell, 495 A.2d 798, 800 (Me. 1985); 17-A M.R.S.A.
§§ 1321-1330-A (1983 & Supp. 1998).  "[C]hapter 54, which regulates all
aspects of restitution, is a legislative judgment delimiting the court's
authority."  O'Donnell, 495 A.2d at 802.  "A judge is not at liberty to fashion
his own orders of restitution outside the scope of this statute."  Id.  "To
require restitution beyond the limits of the statute is an invalid order that
exceeds the court's authority."  Id. at 800.   
	[¶5]  "In Chapter 54, the Legislature has set forth in detail, inter
alia, the purposes of restitution, the criteria to be employed by the
sentencing judge, and the conditions under which restitution may be
required."  Id.  "The purpose of restitution is 'to encourage the
compensation of victims by the person most responsible for the loss
incurred by the victim, the offender.'"  Id., quoting 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1321
(1983).  "Moreover, the Legislature has declared that, beyond simply
helping victims of crime, 'repayment . . . by the offender to the victim of his
crime can operate to rehabilitate the offender in certain instances.'"{3} 
O'Donnell, 495 A.2d at 802.   
	[¶6]  Section 1323 of Title 17-A requires a sentencing court to
order restitution where appropriate, or provide specific reasons for not
imposing restitution.  See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323 (1983 & Supp. 1998). 
"Restitution may be authorized, in whole or in part, as compensation for
economic loss."  17-A M.R.S.A. § 1325(1) (1983 & Supp. 1998).  However,
"[a] restitution order may encompass only economic loss caused to a victim
by the crime for which a defendant is convicted."  State v. Beaudoin, 503
A.2d 1289, 1290 (Me. 1986) (quotations omitted). 
	[¶7]  The record does not indicate that the victim suffered more
than $1,500 of economic loss as a result of the specific crime for which
McCray was convicted.  Pursuant to Count I of the indictment, McCray was
convicted of forgery with respect to "two written instruments purporting to
be checks of the aggregate value of $4,700.00."  (Emphasis added.)  The
State does not assert that McCray withdrew more than $1,500 of forged
check proceeds from his bank account.  Nor does the State contend that the
victim suffered more than $1,500 of economic loss because of those two
forged checks.  Although the State maintains that McCray and a codefendant
were each criminally responsible for the acts of the other, whether as
principals or accomplices, McCray was not convicted of a crime based on
accomplice liability.  See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 57 (1983 & Supp. 1998). 
Therefore, the sentencing court exceeded the bounds of its statutory
authority in ordering restitution for an amount greater than the amount of
the victim's actual economic loss resulting from the specific crime for
which McCray was convicted.  See Beaudoin, 503 A.2d at 1290; O'Donnell,
495 A.2d at 802.  On remand, the court may reconsider each component of
the sentence, including the underlying period of incarceration, the
unsuspended period and the term of probation along with the amount of
restitution.  See Beaudoin, 503 A.2d at 1291.
	The entry is:
Judgment vacated.  Remanded for
resentencing.
Attorneys for State:

David W. Crook, District Attorney
Alan Kelley, Deputy Dist. Atty.
95 State Street
Augusta, ME 04330

Attorney for defendant:

C.H. Spurling, Esq.
2 Church Street
Gardner, ME 04345-2126