State v. Dailey
Annotate this Case
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that substantial competent evidence did not support the district court's restitution amount in this case but reversed the court's mandate directing a second evidentiary hearing.
Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property or services. The district court ordered Defendant to pay $17,279 in restitution. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the order was not supported by substantial competent evidence and vacated the order. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision to vacate the restitution order and remand the case to the district court but reversed its mandate directing a second evidentiary hearing, holding that, on remand, the district court is to impose a new restitution order that is supported by substantial competent evidence from the existing record.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.