(a) A restitution order in a criminal case shall be a final judgment and have all the force and effect of a final judgment in a civil action under the laws of the State of Alabama. The victim on whose behalf restitution is ordered, the executor or administrator of the victim’s estate, or anyone else acting on behalf of the victim, shall be entitled to all the rights and remedies to which a plaintiff would be entitled in a civil action under the laws of this state as well as any other right or remedy pertaining to such restitution order as may be provided by law.
(b) The provisions of this section shall be read and deemed in pari materia with other provisions of law. Provided however, the provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be construed so as to deprive any victim of any other remedy or relief to which a victim may now or hereafter be entitled pursuant to law.
(Acts 1983, No. 83-508, p. 716.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1988–2011 · leading case:
Ex Parte Fletcher, 849 So. 2d 900 (Ala. 2001).
Ex Parte Fletcher, 849 So. 2d 900 (Ala. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Our conclusion that in a criminal case the trial court has the authority to impose interest on a restitution award is strengthened by the fact that § 15-18-78 gives such an award the force and effect of a civil judgment.”
Moore v. State, 706 So. 2d 265 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “We note that if Moore's financial condition improves, the trial court could increase his monthly payment obligations by a reasonable amount at any time during the term of his five-year probation.”
Ex Parte Stewart, 74 So. 3d 944 (Ala. 2011).
· cites it 4× “2005); that there existed no statutory authority for the trial court to modify a restitution order after Byrd had completed his terms of imprisonment and probation; and that after probation had ended restitution was enforceable through the civil process described in § 15-18-78,…”
Theodorou v. State, 53 So. 3d 151 (Ala. 2010).
“See § 15-18-78(a), Ala.Code 1975. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the restitution order in an unpublished memorandum, Theodo-rou v.”
Dixon v. State, 920 So. 2d 1122 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
“See § 15-18-78, Ala.Code 1975; Moore v. State, 706 So.”
State v. Nelson, 766 P.2d 471 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
“9; *138 Ala. Code § 15-18-78 (Supp. 1983), cited in Rice v.”
Ex Parte Watson, 757 So. 2d 1107 (Ala. 2000).
“See § 15-18-78, Ala.Code 1975; Moore v. State, 706 So.”
Ex Parte Stewart, 1100600 (Ala. 6-30-2011), 74 So. 3d 944 (Ala. 2011).
· cites it 4× “2005); that there existed no statutory authority for the trial court to modify a restitution order after Byrd had completed his terms of imprisonment and probation; and that after probation had ended restitution was enforceable through the civil process described in § 15-18-78,…”
Johnson v. State, 17 So. 3d 261 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
“See § 15-18-78, Ala.Code 1975; Moore v. State, 706 So.”
— Ala. Code § 15-18-78(a) — 3 cases
Theodorou v. State, 53 So. 3d 151 (Ala. 2010).
“See § 15-18-78(a), Ala.Code 1975. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the restitution order in an unpublished memorandum, Theodo-rou v.”
Ex Parte Stewart, 74 So. 3d 944 (Ala. 2011).
“2005); that there existed no statutory authority for the trial court to modify a restitution order after Byrd had completed his terms of imprisonment and probation; and that after probation had ended restitution was enforceable through the civil process described in § 15-18-78,…”
Ex Parte Stewart, 1100600 (Ala. 6-30-2011), 74 So. 3d 944 (Ala. 2011).
“2005); that there existed no statutory authority for the trial court to modify a restitution order after Byrd had completed his terms of imprisonment and probation; and that after probation had ended restitution was enforceable through the civil process described in § 15-18-78,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.