Legal Opinion

State v. Escamilla

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 1991No. 90-064PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFahrnbruch, J.

In this case we hold that restitution ordered in a sentence of probation is limited to the loss resulting from that offense of which the defendant has been convicted.

The defendant, Consuelo T. Escamilla, appeals an order of the district court for Lancaster County requiring her, as a condition of her probation, to make restitution to the State of Nebraska in the sum of $13,253, when her only conviction was of fraudulently obtaining food stamps having a value of $4,763.

Originally, Escamilla was charged in a two-count information. Count I charged her with fraudulently obtaining or fraudulently…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. SchroderNebraska Supreme Court · 1984
  2. People v. KimbleMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. Holdrege Cooperative Ass'n v. WilsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State v. RiosNebraska Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. McClanahanNebraska Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. JoubertNebraska Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. KantarasNebraska Supreme Court · 2016
  3. State v. WoodNebraska Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State v. WellsNebraska Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. StuebenNebraska Supreme Court · 1992

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