This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1109

 

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Larry Lee Garner,

Appellant.

 

Filed September 11, 2007

Affirmed

Toussaint, Chief Judge

 

St. Louis County District Court

File No. CR-05-1460

 

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Tibor M. Gallo, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and

 

Melanie S. Ford, St. Louis County Attorney, Leslie E. Beiers, Assistant County Attorney, 100 North Fifth Avenue West, Suite 501, Duluth, MN 55802 (for respondent)

 

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Ngoc L. Nguyen, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

 

            Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Parker, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

In this appeal from a sentence imposed for multiple counts of third-degree controlled-substance crime, appellant Larry Lee Garner argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay restitution to the Duluth Police Department without considering his ability to pay.  Because the district court’s findings show sufficient consideration of appellant’s financial circumstances, we affirm.

D E C I S I O N

            Minnesota law gives the victim of a crime the right to receive restitution for loss caused by a convicted criminal offender.  Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2004).  The district court has broad discretion in ordering restitution.  State v. Thole, 614 N.W.2d 231, 234 (Minn. App. 2000).

The district court ordered appellant to pay $240 in restitution to the Duluth Police Department for loss of buy money used in a controlled drug purchase.  Appellant does not dispute that it was within the district court’s discretion to order restitution to law enforcement for buy money.  See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.10, subd. 2(a)(2) (defining “restitution” to include “payment of compensation to a government entity that incurs loss as a direct result of a crime”), 611A.01(b)(ii) (2004) (defining “victim” to include “government entity that incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime”).

Appellant argues only that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider appellant’s indigence and inability to pay when ordering restitution.[1]  See Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(2) (2004) (requiring court to consider, in deciding whether to order restitution, “income, resources, and obligations of the defendant”).  The district court specifically noted the statutory requirement that it consider “the income, resources and obligation of [appellant]” when deciding whether to order restitution and found that “restitution for loss of buy money is not improper based on the resources and circumstances of [appellant].”  These findings show sufficient consideration of appellant’s financial circumstances.  See State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652, 663-64 (Minn. 2001) (finding no abuse of discretion in ordering indigent defendant to pay $32,682.93 in restitution when district court specifically stated that it “considered [defendant’s] ability to pay when it ordered restitution to be paid from prison earnings”). 

Affirmed.