Introduction
In State v. Merrill, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded restitution without expressly stating that it considered the defendant’s ability to pay. It reversed the restitution order and remanded for the required statement. The court affirmed the conviction and prison sentence.
The restitution ruling
Judge Miller signed a May 22, 2025 order awarding $2,293.59 in joint-and-several restitution. Minnesota law required the district court to consider Merrill’s income, resources, and obligations. Under the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Wigham, the judge also had to say, orally or in writing, that he considered those factors.
The presentence investigation report contained information about Merrill’s income and employment. The Court of Appeals held that this did not replace the required statement from the district court. Neither the sentencing hearing nor the written order expressly said that the court considered Merrill’s income, resources, and obligations.
Other issues on appeal
The court rejected Merrill’s request to withdraw his guilty plea and upheld the denial of a downward dispositional departure. His conviction and 60-month prison sentence remain affirmed. It also held that a separate challenge to restitution for one recipient was forfeited because Merrill had not raised it in district court.
Affidavit filed in a different case. Of the $2,293.59 award, $1,393.59 came from information submitted in Merrill’s son’s case. The state pointed to an affidavit and receipts filed there; the Court of Appeals noted that the affidavit was not filed in Merrill’s case. It did not decide Merrill’s challenge to that portion because he had not raised it in district court.
Scope of the reversal
The abuse-of-discretion finding concerns the required statement about ability to pay. The appellate court did not determine that Merrill could not pay restitution or decide the amount to be ordered on remand.
MCRO balance after the appellate judgment. The appellate judgment was entered September 11, 2026. The MCRO register of actions searched September 27, 2026, at 5:52 p.m. still listed $2,293.59 in restitution in its financial summary and showed no replacement restitution order. It also recorded a $5.14 “MCF Payment Receipt” dated September 14 without identifying how that payment was applied.
Sources
Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Merrill, A25-1342 (June 22, 2026), especially pages 7–11. Justice-Denied also reviewed the May 20, 2025 sentencing transcript, the May 22 signed restitution order, the September 11, 2026 appellate judgment, and the MCRO register of actions for No. 56-CR-24-941 searched September 27, 2026, at 5:52 p.m.
