This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).







State of Minnesota,





Scott Michael Carlson,



Filed July 29, 2003


Willis, Judge


Olmsted County District Court

File No. K4012645


Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN  55103; and


Raymond F. Schmitz, Olmsted County Attorney, Jeffrey D. Hill, Assistant County Attorney, 151 Fourth Street S.E., Rochester, MN  55904 (for respondent)


John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue SE, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)


            Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Hudson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Appellant challenges his sentence for criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by awarding restitution without a sufficient factual basis for the award.  Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.


            In August 2001, appellant Scott Michael Carlson was charged with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (2000), and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (2000).  The charges involved two victims, N.D.H. and A.M.W. 

In January 2002, Carlson pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving N.D.H. and second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving A.M.W.  In return for Carlson’s plea, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charge of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and a separate complaint against Carlson for criminal sexual conduct involving a third victim. 

In April 2002, the district court sentenced Carlson to concurrent prison terms of 144 months and 21 months.  The court reserved the issue of restitution for 30 days, later receiving two affidavits seeking restitution.  N.D.H.’s father requested $50 to reimburse him for payment of the deductible amount for a health-insurance claim resulting from N.D.H.’s treatment and $342.20 for wages lost when he attended court proceedings.  The Crime Victims Reparations Board requested $504 for mental-health services provided by Rochester Family Services.  Carlson objected to the restitution requests, arguing that neither one included sufficient supporting documentation.  N.D.H.’s father submitted additional documentation, and, at a July 2002 hearing, Carlson’s attorney told the court that the father’s request had sufficient support and that Carlson no longer objected to it but that Carlson still objected to the board’s request. 

In August 2002, the court ordered Carlson to pay N.D.H.’s father $392.40 and to notify the court if he still contested the board’s claim.  Carlson’s attorney notified the court that Carlson objected to the board’s restitution request because it failed to adequately describe the losses for which restitution was sought.  In September 2002, the district court found that the Board’s affidavit was a “sufficient factual basis upon which” to rely in awarding restitution, and the court ordered Carlson to pay $504 to the board.  This appeal follows.


District courts “are given broad discretion in awarding restitution,” State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn. 1999), but the record must provide a factual basis for an award, showing the nature and amount of losses with reasonable specificity, State v. Keehn, 554 N.W.2d 405, 408 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1996).  An award of restitution will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.  Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d at 671.

Carlson contends that the board’s restitution request does not show that the board’s loss was a direct result of his conduct.  He argues that the board’s request fails to comply with Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2000), which provides that information “submitted relating to restitution must describe the items or elements of loss, itemize the total dollar amounts * * * , and specify the reasons justifying these amounts.”  While the documentation submitted in support of the board’s restitution request could have been more complete, we conclude that the restitution award is supported by a sufficient factual basis. 

            The board’s “order for payment” and accompanying affidavit name Carlson as the defendant, specify the type and date of his crime, and indicate that $504 was paid to Rochester Family Services for mental-health services.  The information provided in the order for payment and affidavit satisfies the requirement that the nature and amount of losses be stated with “reasonable specificity.”