Implicit Remand and Mandatory Restitution:
The Precedential Impact of State v. Blake (2025 UT 21)

Introduction

In State v. Blake, the Utah Supreme Court resolved a recurrent procedural quandary: When an appellate court reverses a restitution order for insufficient evidence but does not expressly remand the matter, does the trial court retain authority—indeed, a duty—to conduct a new restitution hearing? Chief Justice Durrant’s unanimous opinion answers “yes,” holding that reversal alone nullifies the prior order without limiting the district court’s statutory obligation to determine restitution. The Court also clarifies the interaction between several preclusion doctrines (res judicata, law of the case, mandate rule), the statutory restitution timeline, and double-jeopardy principles.

The decision creates an important Utah precedent: a district court must treat a reversed restitution order as though it never existed and, absent an explicit appellate prohibition, must proceed to recalculate restitution in compliance with the Crime Victims Restitution Act (CVRA).

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Shon Brian Blake pleaded guilty to multiple offenses after shooting his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend, whose medical expenses (> $36,000) were paid by the Utah Office for Victims of Crime (UOVC). The district court originally set complete restitution at the full amount and court-ordered restitution at roughly half. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed that order, finding the evidence too sparse to link the claimed expenses to the gunshot injuries. Upon remittitur, the district court—over Blake’s objection—held a fresh evidentiary hearing, received detailed billing records and testimony from a UOVC analyst, and issued a second order (complete restitution unchanged; slightly higher court-ordered amount).

Blake’s second appeal raised four arguments: (1) the new hearing was barred by res judicata; (2) the “mandate rule” (law of the case) prohibited further proceedings; (3) the renewed State motion was untimely; and (4) the evidence still fell short. The Supreme Court rejected each contention, holding:

Res judicata applies only between separate actions, not within the same case.
The mandate rule does not foreclose a trial court from addressing issues left unresolved after an appellate reversal unless the appellate court expressly says so.
A timely restitution request remains pending until finally resolved; the statute’s one-year filing limit does not bar further evidence after reversal.
The augmented record supplied “firmly established” evidence of the causal link and reasonableness of the medical expenses.

Result: the second restitution order was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court canvassed a constellation of Utah decisions to separate and align preclusion doctrines:

IHC Health Services v. D & K Mgmt., 2008 UT 73 – distinguished res judicata from law-of-the-case, overruling State v. Garner on that point.
Chase Manhattan Bank v. Principal Funding, 2004 UT 9 – reversal without explicit remand does not bar further proceedings unless expressly directed.
Cobb v. Snow (Cobb I 1962; Cobb II 1963) – reversal nullifies judgment but allows renewed prosecution/ proceedings.
State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8 – clarified evidentiary thresholds for restitution: firmly established, non-speculative approximations are permitted.
State v. Laycock, 2009 UT 53 – discussed the tripartite purposes of restitution (compensation, rehabilitation, deterrence).
Additional references: Weeks (rules of evidence at restitution), Mooers (civil judgment nature of restitution), and authorities on double jeopardy and mandate rule.

Collectively, these precedents reinforced the Court’s conclusion that: (1) res judicata is inapplicable within one case, (2) an appellate court’s silence on remand leaves the trial court free—indeed obliged—to proceed, and (3) restitution demands a flexible evidentiary approach compatible with its sentencing function.

Legal Reasoning

Res Judicata vs. Law of the Case. The Court reiterated that claim preclusion bars “subsequent actions,” not further steps in the same action. Thus, Blake’s reliance on res judicata failed at the threshold.
The Mandate Rule. Citing IHC, the Court explained that absent an express limitation, a reversal implicitly authorizes the trial court to take “appropriate next steps.” Because restitution is mandated by statute (CVRA), recalculating it after reversal is not discretionary—it is compulsory.
Timeliness. The statutory one-year period (former §77-38a-302(5)(d)) governs only the initiation of a restitution request. The State’s original motion was timely, and pending matters survive appellate reversal. The amended motion therefore related back; no fresh deadline was triggered.
Sufficiency of the Evidence. Applying clear-error review, the Court found the unredacted bills, CPT codes, provider details, and sworn testimony more than adequate to “firmly establish” medical costs causally linked to the gunshot wounds— well above a speculative “ball-park” range disallowed in Ogden.
Double Jeopardy Clarified (Dictum). The opinion briefly distinguished restitution from punitive sentencing for double-jeopardy purposes, citing Monson v. Carver, and noted that neither party relied on double-jeopardy as a barrier. This dicta signals continued reluctance to constitutionalize restitution errors.

Impact of the Decision

The ruling will reverberate through Utah’s criminal courts in several ways:

Procedural Guidance: Trial judges now have explicit reassurance that, when a restitution order is vacated for evidentiary insufficiency without explicit remand instructions, they must “start over” and gather the best available evidence.
Litigation Strategy: Prosecutors can cure evidentiary gaps on remand without worrying about res judicata or timeliness, provided the initial request was timely.
Victim Compensation: The decision protects victims and UOVC from losing reimbursement due to technical appellate oversights, furthering the CVRA’s remedial goal.
Appellate Drafting: Appellate panels may become more explicit about remand scope to avoid confusion; but absent such specificity, Blake supplies a default rule.
Educational Value: The opinion neatly dissects overlapping doctrines, making it a teaching tool for Utah practitioners on how to analyze mandate-rule problems.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Restitution (Utah CVRA): Court-ordered repayment for the victim’s pecuniary losses (including payments made by UOVC) that were proximately caused by the defendant’s crime. It is part of sentencing but becomes a civil judgment for collection and enforcement.

Complete vs. Court-Ordered Restitution: Under the pre-2021 statute, “complete” equaled total proven losses; “court-ordered” could be a lower amount considering the defendant’s ability to pay. Post-2021 amendments merged these categories, but Blake applied the older regime.

Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion): Bars re-litigation of claims between the same parties that were—or could have been—raised in a prior lawsuit that ended in a final judgment. It does not govern motions within the same case.

Law of the Case / Mandate Rule: Once an appellate court decides a legal issue, that decision generally binds the trial court on remand. However, if the appellate court merely reverses without directive, the trial court may address unresolved questions anew.

Proximate Cause (in Restitution): A causal link similar to tort law—losses must be the “natural and probable result” of the criminal act. Medical bills arising directly from gunshot treatment satisfy this standard.

“Firmly Established” Evidence: A Utah-specific phrase (from Ogden) that means reasonably reliable, non-speculative proof—though not necessarily as rigorous as civil discovery requirements.

Conclusion

State v. Blake supplies a clear rule for Utah courts: when a restitution order is reversed for lack of evidence and the appellate mandate is silent, the district court retains both authority and duty to recalculate restitution, gathering additional evidence as needed. Preclusion doctrines do not impede that process, and the original statutory filing deadline does not restart.

Beyond its immediate holding, the decision refines Utah’s procedural jurisprudence by: (1) drawing bright lines between res judicata and law-of-the-case within criminal proceedings; (2) reaffirming restitution’s hybrid civil-criminal character; and (3) illustrating an evidence threshold that is rigorous yet practical. Future litigants now have a reliable template for navigating restitution reversals, and victims can be confident that procedural missteps will not foreclose their right to compensation.

Implicit Remand and Mandatory Restitution: The Precedential Impact of State v. Blake (2025 UT 21)