Id. Smith asserts that since Nix was decided, at least four courts have found such a cap does exist and that the restitution order must be connected to an adjudication of guilt. See Phillips, supra; Bogard v. State, 2014 Ark.App. 700, 450 S.W.3d 690; Simmons, supra; Fortson v. State, 66 Ark.App. 225, 989 S.W.2d 553 (1999). Accordingly, Smith argues that Nix is outdated and inapposite.
An adult who commits theft by receiving would be subject to restitution. SeeFortson v. State , 66 Ark. App. 225, 989 S.W.2d 553 (1999). Thus, it was not necessary for J.L. to be adjudicated for any offense other than theft by receiving to impose restitution.
This makes sense because the goal of restitution is to make a victim whole with respect to the financial injury suffered as a result of the crime committed. This court has held that it is error for a court to order a defendant to pay restitution for offenses with which he or she has not been charged or to which he or she did not plead guilty or no contest. Bogard v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 700, 450 S.W.3d 690 ; Simmons v. State , 90 Ark. App. 273, 205 S.W.3d 194 (2005) ; Fortson v. State , 66 Ark. App. 225, 989 S.W.2d 553 (1999). In Simmons , we reversed a restitution order, noting that "even a preponderance standard does not allow the State ... to allege that the victim is entitled to recover based on additional conduct [with] which the defendant has not been charged. If the State believes that it can prove appellant stole the additional items, it must first obtain a conviction related to those charges, and then seek restitution based on that conviction. "
Jester v. State, 367 Ark. 249, 239 S.W.3d 484 (2006). This court has held that it is error for a defendant to be ordered to pay restitution for offenses with which he has not been charged or to which he did not plead guilty or no contest. Simmons v. State, 90 Ark.App. 273, 205 S.W.3d 194 (2005); Fortson v. State, 66 Ark.App. 225, 989 S.W.2d 553 (1999). In the present case, while Bogard was charged with theft of scrap metal, he was acquitted of this offense at the bench trial.
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-205(a)(3)(A). The trial court erred in ordering appellant to pay restitution for the theft of items for which he had not been charged and to which he did not plead guilty or no contest. The instant case is similar to Fortson v. State, 66 Ark. App. 225, 989 S.W.2d 553 (1999). In that case, property had been stolen from the same victim in a series of burglaries. Several of the items were sold to antique shops and it was determined that Fortson sold some of the stolen items to the shops.
Id. A person may be found guilty of theft by receiving if he is knowingly in possession of stolen property, even without proof that he took the property himself or acquired it from the actual thief. Slater v. State, supra; Fortson v. State, 66 Ark. App. 225, 989 S.W.2d 553 (1999). Relying on King v. State, 250 Ark. 523, 465 S.W.2d 712 (1971), appellant first asserts that, in order to convict him, the State must prove that the trailer belonged to Allen.