….
The trial court erred by ordering Rodgers to participate in VORP instead of conducting a hearing about restitution because the order that he participate in VORP was not permissible under the statutes creating VORP. [Footnote omitted.]
….
The purpose of VORP is to:
provide an opportunity for a victim, if the accused person or the offender agrees, to:
(A) meet with the accused person or the offender in a safe, controlled environment;
(B) give to the accused person or the offender, either orally or in writing, a summary of the financial, emotional, and physical effects of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family; and
(C) negotiate a restitution agreement to be submitted to the sentencing court for damages incurred by the victim as a result of the offense.
Ind. Code § 35-40-6-4(9) (1999) (emphasis added).
The legislature has provided, through VORP, a mechanism whereby an offender and victim can meet to negotiate a restitution agreement that is then submitted to the sentencing court. However, the plain language of the statute provides such a meeting can occur “if the accused person or the offender agrees” to do so. Id. Finding no ambiguity in that phrase, we may not interpret it; we instead apply the plain language. [Citation omitted.] Thus, without the agreement of the offender, VORP cannot be ordered.
Rodgers did not agree to participate in VORP negotiations. We therefore reverse the order that he participate in VORP and remand to the trial court for a restitution hearing. [Citation omitted.]
Reversed and remanded.
Mathias, J., concurs. Robb, J., concurs in result without separate opinion.