The appellant, Carolyn Burden, appealed her conviction for fraud over $5,000 and her five-year sentence, which included restitution and forfeiture orders.
She argued her guilty plea was uninformed and the sentence unduly harsh, particularly regarding the imposition of both a forfeiture order and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding her plea informed and voluntary.
However, it granted leave to appeal sentence, setting aside the forfeiture order and reducing the fine in lieu of forfeiture to account for prior restitution payments, clarifying that only one such order (forfeiture or fine in lieu) can be imposed and that restitution should reduce the fine.
