May, J.
Steven Linville appeals following his convictions of three counts of Level 6 felony theft and three counts of Level 6 felony making or delivering a false sales document. He argues his fifteen-year sentence is inappropriate and the order that he pay $98,310.30 in restitution is “obvious error.” We affirm in part, and we reverse and remand in part.
For about sixteen years, Linville was employed by Laughery Valley AG (hereinafter, “Laughery Valley”). On behalf of Laughery Valley, Linville delivered fuel, oil, washer fluid, and antifreeze to about four hundred customers. In 2015, Laughery Valley began to suspect that Linville had been issuing false receipts to customers so that he could steal money from the payments due to Laughery Valley. When Laughery Valley confronted Linville, he admitted he took the money.
On January 29, 2016, the State filed thirty-four counts against Linville for events occurring on seventeen separate dates between October 6, 2014, and October 21, 2015. …
On October 23, 2017, Linville entered an agreement whereby he would plead guilty to three counts of Level 6 felony theft and three counts of Level 6 felony delivering a false sales document, in exchange for the State dismissing the remaining twenty-eight counts. The agreement left the sentence for each count to the Court’s discretion but required all counts be served consecutively. Finally, the agreement provided: “Defendant shall pay restitution to Laughery Valley AG. The restitution amount shall be determined by the Court following a Restitution Hearing.”
On October 24, 2017, the trial court accepted that agreement, entered those six convictions, and ordered the production of a presentence investigation report. The victim impact statement filed by Laughery Valley indicated that, between May of 2011 and November of 2015, Linville “stole at least $369,426.59 worth of sales proceeds through his scheme.” At sentencing, Linville argued the court could not order him to pay more than $35,729.00, based on the six counts to which Linville pled guilty. …
….
The trial court found the aggravators “significantly outweigh” the mitigators, and imposed a fifteen-year sentence with three years suspended to probation. The court also ordered Linville to “pay restitution to Laughery Valley . . . in the amount of $98,310.30.”
Linville then filed a motion to correct error that challenged both his sentence and the restitution order. He argued the court “relied on aggravating circumstances that are not supported by the record or are improper as a matter of law.” (Id. at 138.) As to restitution, Linville asserted the court’s ruling was “incorrect as a matter of law. Under Indiana law the restitution order could not have exceeded $35,729.00.” (Id.) The trial court denied Linville’s motion to correct error in a lengthy order that will be quoted where relevant to the issues raised on appeal.
….
The trial court ordered Linville to pay $98,310.30, and Linville argues that was error under Dull v. State, 44 N.E.3d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). …
….
At no point did counsel agree that Linville should be or would be responsible for the money alleged to have been stolen during all seventeen thefts. “The trial court cannot order a defendant to pay restitution for crimes to which he did not plead guilty, has not been convicted, or did not agree to pay as restitution.” Dull, 44 N.E.3d 831. We therefore hold the trial court’s denial of Linville’s motion to correct error as to restitution was an abuse of discretion.
Because Linville did not agree to pay restitution for all seventeen thefts that were charged, he could not be ordered to pay $98,310.30 in restitution when he was convicted of only six crimes. See Dull, 44 N.E.3d at 832 … Linville’s counsel did concede the restitution order for those six crimes should be $35,729.00, based on the amounts of the checks written by Bob’s Service Station to Linville on those dates. At the restitution hearing, the witness for Laughery Valley testified the restitution it was requesting was based only on sixty-one checks written to Linville from Bob’s Service Station. As such, Laughery Valley was not requesting reimbursement in this criminal context for any other form of loss caused by Linville’s actions. We therefore can determine that the trial court should have ordered Linville to pay $35,729.00 in restitution. We accordingly reverse the trial court’s order as to restitution and remand for the trial court to modify the judgment against Linville to indicate he must pay $35,729.00 in restitution to Laughery Valley.
In light of Linville’s character and offense, we see nothing inappropriate about his fifteen-year sentence, three of which were suspended to probation, and we affirm the length of his sentence. However, the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Linville to pay $98,310.30 in restitution. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a new order requiring Linville to pay $35,729.00 in restitution to Laughery Valley.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.