You have made a mistake. Recently, times have been tough, and yet you constantly see others getting ahead. You’ve worked hard and done things the right way, but you’re still stuck where you started. Meanwhile, others who cut corners or break the rules seem to be thriving. They have a new car, a new house; while you feel like you’re spinning your wheels. In a rash decision, you decide to steal the car you’ve been eyeing. Doing things the right way never got you there, so why not try another route? You know people who’ve done it and gotten away with it, why not you? To justify it, you choose to steal from a large dealership. After all, what’s the big deal? The cars are insured, and a big corporation can absorb the loss. You convince yourself: you need the car more than they do, and no one is getting hurt.

That night, you make your move. You steal the car and drive off. But after a day or two, you learn that cars now come equipped with tracking devices. You also hear that a former high school friend is serving five years in prison for doing the same thing. Suddenly, it doesn’t seem worth it. You decide to turn yourself in, along with the undamaged car, which only has a few extra miles on it. The police are thankful, and by some stroke of luck, you are only sentenced to probation and community service. You're grateful to have put this mistake behind you. However, the court then orders you to pay restitution to the car dealership, without any evidence presented and without giving you an opportunity to confront the dealership. You ask yourself: Is this really allowed?

In a similar case decided on March 28, 2025, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals set aside a decision by the Montgomery County Circuit Court that had ordered Chadrick Ladaryl Mendenhall to pay $9,121.55 in restitution to McConnell Honda, a car dealership in Montgomery. The case arose from events in Montgomery, Alabama, where Mendenhall stole a vehicle from McConnell Honda, but the vehicle was eventually returned without damage. Despite this, the circuit court, without presenting any evidence “regarding the amount of restitution… entered a written order requiring Mendenhall to pay restitution in the amount of $9,121.55.” Mendenhall v. State, No. CR-2024-0232, 2025 WL 939439, at *1 (Ala. Crim. App. Mar. 28, 2025). Mendenhall appealed the decision to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing “the circuit court erred when it ordered restitution without taking testimony or receiving evidence to support the award of restitution.” Id.

In response to Mendenhall’s argument, the Court ruled “that the circuit court erroneously ordered Mendenhall to pay restitution” because the State failed “to prove the amount of restitution owed to the victim by means of legal evidence.” Id. at 4. Under established Alabama law, a defendant is entitled “to a hearing, at which legal evidence was introduced, in order to determine the precise amount of restitution due the victim in this case.” Henry v. State, 468 So. 2d 896 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984). Furthermore, “the amount of restitution... ‘shall be determined by the court from evidence.’” Rule 10(a)(5), Ala. R. Crim. P.

In this case, the State did have a conversation with a representative of the car dealership regarding the value of the damage. However, these conversations were not sworn statements, and “unsworn statements were not legal evidence.” Mendenhall v. State, WL 939439, at *4. Therefore, this information could not be used to determine the restitution amount under Rule 10(a)(5), Ala. R. Crim. P. The court concluded that even if the evidence had been admissible, it would not have affected the outcome. This was because it was not clearly indicated “whether Mendenhall was given an opportunity to review it, and it was never admitted into evidence or otherwise made part of the record.” Mendenhall v. State, WL 939439, at *4. Ultimately the court held “we set aside the restitution order in this case and remand the case to the trial court for a new restitution hearing for the purpose of determining restitution in accordance with the restitution statutes.” Id.

Under Alabama law, a restitution order must be supported by legal evidence. Legal evidence refers to evidence that is formally admitted and used during the legal proceedings. Additionally, for a restitution order to be valid, the defendant must be given an opportunity to review the evidence and confront any witnesses presenting it. In this case, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reaffirmed a fundamental principle of the American legal system: that all judicial decisions must be based on evidence, and every individual has the right to confront their accuser.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.