STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Susan Lee Ramsey,
Filed July 13, 1999
Cass County District Court
District Court File No. K6-98-347
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Earl E. Maus, Cass County Attorney, Box 3000, Walker, MN 56484 (for respondent)
Jay E. Sommer, Assistant District Public Defender, Ninth Judicial District, P.O. Box 310, Walker, MN 56484 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Judge Peterson, Presiding Judge, Judge, Short, and Shumaker, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court's restitution order arguing that the court erred in requiring appellant to pay for a Denver saddle when there was no evidence that appellant caused the loss of the saddle. We reverse.
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering her to pay restitution in the amount of $1,450 for a Denver saddle. She contends that there was no factual basis on which to make the award because there is no evidence that the saddle was damaged by the fire she started. Furthermore, she was not charged with theft and there is no evidence that she stole the saddle.
On review of the record, it appears that the district court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay restitution for the saddle. Appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree arson. Although the victim suggests that appellant either set fire to the saddle or stole it, there was no evidence in the record that the Denver saddle was harmed in any manner by the fire. See State v. Keehn, 554 N.W.2d 405, 408 (Minn. App. 1996) (holding that record must provide factual basis for district court restitution award) review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1996). Appellant was not charged with any theft crimes, and there is nothing in the record to support an accusation that appellant stole the saddle. See State v. Esler, 553 N.W.2d 61, 65 (Minn. App. 1996) (holding that restitution order improper where order is related to a criminal matter separate from defendant's conviction), review denied (Minn. Oct. 15, 1996). Although the determination of restitution is within the province of the district court, the victim must show entitlement to restitution. The facts do not support the district court's order awarding restitution for the saddle.