Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Killough

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 10, 1983No. 82-437PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The sole issue presented in this case is whether a defendant who pleads guilty to an indictment can be required, as a condition of probation, to make restitution in an amount greater than that alleged in the indictment.

As the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly states in its opinion, the trial judge had authority to require Killough to make restitution as a condition of her probation. Code 1975, §15-22-52 (8). The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that other state courts, construing statutes similar to § 15-22-52 (8), had limited the amount of restitution to the amount specified in the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Karl Lee Phillips v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
  2. United States v. Gerald L. VaughnCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1980
  3. United States v. McLaughlinDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1981
  4. Killough v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1982

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Walczak v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  2. Ex Parte ClareSupreme Court of Alabama · 1984
  3. Clare v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1983
  4. State v. StachowskiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
  5. Lee v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API