The Georgia Court of Appeals has upheld a restitution order against Nicolas Michael Kilbourne, who pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree burglary. The court's decision, filed on July 28, 2026, clarifies the legal standards surrounding restitution in cases involving multiple offenders. Kilbourne's case highlights the complexities of plea agreements and the obligations that come with them.
This ruling affects Kilbourne, who is required to pay restitution of $10,773.78 to the victim, and it sets a precedent for how courts handle restitution in similar cases. The decision underscores the importance of understanding the terms of plea agreements and the implications of joint and several liability.
Background
Nicolas Michael Kilbourne was indicted along with co-defendant Chadwick Chase Dunn for their involvement in multiple burglaries of the same victim's home in July 2024. Kilbourne faced charges for the second and third burglaries, while Dunn was also charged with a separate burglary. As part of a negotiated plea agreement, Kilbourne pleaded guilty to the two counts of burglary.
During the plea hearing, the state recommended that Kilbourne pay restitution to the victim. The trial judge confirmed Kilbourne's understanding of the restitution amount, which was set at $10,773.78, to be paid jointly with Dunn. After the sentencing, Kilbourne sought to modify his sentence, particularly aiming to reduce the restitution amount, but the trial court denied his request.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals of Georgia, in a combined opinion written by Judge Padgett and joined by Judges McFadden and Watkins, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court noted that Kilbourne's argument against the restitution provision was unfounded. “The restitution condition imposed by the trial court was authorized by law,” the opinion stated.
The court explained that under Georgia law, specifically OCGA § 17-14-7(c), a trial court has the authority to impose joint and several liability for restitution among multiple offenders. Since both Kilbourne and Dunn contributed to the victim's losses, the court found that the trial judge was within their rights to require Kilbourne to pay the full restitution amount.
Furthermore, the court addressed Kilbourne's claim that the restitution amount was unlawful because it included losses from a burglary he did not participate in. The judges pointed out that there was no evidence showing that the restitution amount exceeded the victim's damages or that Kilbourne was responsible for losses from the first burglary. “Kilbourne has pointed to nothing in the record showing that he (or Dunn for that matter) agreed to pay restitution for something other than the crime they committed together,” the opinion noted.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for defendants in similar situations. It reinforces the principle that restitution amounts agreed upon in plea negotiations are binding, provided they do not exceed the victim's damages. Kilbourne's case serves as a reminder that defendants must fully understand their obligations when entering plea agreements.
Additionally, the court's affirmation of the joint and several liability for restitution among co-defendants clarifies how courts can allocate financial responsibility in cases involving multiple offenders. This ruling may influence future cases where restitution is contested, particularly in plea agreement scenarios.
What's Next
Kilbourne has the option to appeal the ruling, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are currently no related cases pending that would impact this ruling.