Baker, J.
Jack Fisher was found driving a vehicle that contained a methamphetamine lab. A State Police Clandestine Lab Team had to clean up the lab, and incurred costs in doing so. After Fisher pleaded guilty, the trial court ordered him to pay restitution to the lab team in the amount of those costs.
Fisher … argues that the restitution order was improper because there was no victim to whom restitution should be paid. Finding that the trial court was statutorily required to order restitution in this case, we affirm.
….
Initially, we note that restitution was not mentioned in the plea agreement or at the guilty plea hearing. Under these circumstances, the general rule is that the trial court may not order restitution. See Edsall v. State, 983 N.E.2d 200, 208-09 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In this case, however, there is a specific statute mandating trial court action:
(a) In addition to any other penalty imposed for conviction of an offense under this chapter involving the manufacture or intent to manufacture methamphetamine, a court shall order restitution under IC 35-50-5-3 to cover the costs, if necessary, of an environmental cleanup incurred by a law enforcement agency or other person as a result of the offense.
(b) The amount collected under subsection (a) shall be used to reimburse the law enforcement agency that assumed the costs associated with the environmental cleanup described in subsection (a).
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-17 (emphasis added).
We acknowledge an apparent conflict between the case law, which provides that restitution may not be ordered unless it is included in the plea agreement, and the statute, which requires the trial court to order restitution in methamphetamine cleanup cases. It is well established that plea agreements are contractual in nature [and] … that a contract must be construed as having been made in contemplation of applicable law. [Citations omitted.] … Under these circumstances, we find that the plea agreement implicitly incorporated the statutory restitution requirement. [Citation omitted.] Therefore, the trial court did not err by ordering restitution.
… Here, the Clandestine Lab Team agency is the statutorily mandated victim to whom restitution is owed. We find no error in this regard.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.