Rodney Towe v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker inapplicable, in part because there is “no risk that the defendant has been convicted de facto of a more serious offense”
• holding Booker does “not affect the manner in which findings of restitution or forfeiture amounts must be made”
• requiring the evidence to be “explicitly clear that all of the funds listed in the government’s forfeiture submission in this case were from illegal activity”
• requiring deduction for value of property returned to victim and amount that defendant repaid to the victim before the indictment was returned
• “[A] defendant’s wholly unsubstantiated statements are not enough to counter or even question the court’s acceptance of the government’s proof of loss as outlined in the presentence investigation report.”
• because there is no “prescribed statutory maximum” for restitution orders, Blakely, Booker, and Fanfan do not affect the manner in which findings of restitution amounts must be made

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).