Hughey v. United States
495 U.S. 411 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 authorizes federal courts to order restitution only for losses caused by the specific conduct that forms the basis of the offense for which the defendant was convicted.
Facts:
- Frasiel L. Hughey, a United States Postal Service employee, was indicted on six counts related to the theft and unauthorized use of numerous credit cards.
- The indictment alleged a scheme involving the theft and use of approximately 30 credit cards, causing losses to several financial institutions.
- Hughey entered into a plea agreement with the Government, pleading guilty to a single count (Count 4) which charged him with the unauthorized use of one specific MBank Mastercard issued to Hershey Godfrey.
- In exchange for the guilty plea to Count 4, the Government agreed to dismiss the remaining five counts.
- During the plea proceeding, Hughey's counsel explicitly stated that his admission of guilt was confined only to the facts pertaining to the Hershey Godfrey credit card in Count 4.
- The total losses MBank sustained from Hughey's alleged scheme involving 21 cards was $90,431.
- The specific loss MBank sustained from the unauthorized use of the Hershey Godfrey card, the offense of conviction, was $10,412.
Procedural Posture:
- Frasiel L. Hughey pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized use of a credit card in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The District Court sentenced Hughey and, over his objection, ordered him to pay restitution of $90,431 to MBank, an amount covering losses from all alleged related offenses, not just the offense of conviction.
- Hughey filed a motion to correct the sentence, arguing the restitution order exceeded the court's statutory authority, which the District Court denied.
- Hughey (appellant) appealed the District Court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the restitution order, holding that the VWPA permits restitution for amounts beyond the offense of conviction if there is a significant connection to the crime.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 authorize a federal court to order a defendant to pay restitution for losses related to alleged offenses for which the defendant was not convicted?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. The Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) does not authorize a court to order restitution for losses beyond those caused by the specific conduct underlying the offense of conviction. The plain language of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3579(a)(1), repeatedly links the restitution award to "any victim of such offense," where "such offense" refers to the offense of conviction. The ordinary meaning of "restitution" is to restore a victim to the position they held before a particular event, which in this context is the crime for which the defendant was found guilty. The government's argument that the catchall phrase in § 3580(a) allows consideration of "such other factors as the court deems appropriate" to expand restitution is unconvincing. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, this general phrase must be read in light of the specific, limiting factors surrounding it, such as the defendant's financial resources, which are intended to potentially reduce, not expand, the restitution amount. Even if the statutory language were ambiguous, the rule of lenity would require interpreting the statute in favor of the defendant, precluding an expansive reading of the court's authority to order restitution.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the scope of restitution orders in federal criminal cases, establishing a bright-line rule that restitution must be tied directly to the loss caused by the specific count of conviction. It prevents courts from ordering compensation for a defendant's broader criminal scheme or related conduct unless the defendant is convicted of, or explicitly agrees in a plea deal to pay restitution for, those other acts. This ruling places a greater burden on prosecutors to secure convictions on all counts for which they seek restitution or to negotiate plea agreements that expressly include restitution for dismissed charges. The case reinforces the principle that criminal penalties, including restitution, must be strictly tethered to the proven or admitted conduct underlying a specific conviction.
Unlock the full brief for Hughey v. United States