has resulted in pecuniary damages, in addition to any other sentence imposed, th n mention restitution at sentencing. It is clear from the record that defendant closely read the presentence report which contained the recommended restitution amount, which is the exact amount that the judge adopted when ordering restitution. Thus, prior to sentencing, defendant was well aware of the recommended restitution amount. Nothing in the record suggests that he lacked the opportunity to object or request a hearing before, during, or after the court imposed that amou 1) (concluding when trial court addressed issue fully and did not rely on waiver, issue will be considered on appeal); State v. Matsamas, 808 P.2d 1048, 1053 (Utah 1991) (same); State v. Dominguez, 1999 UT App 343, ¶ 5, 992 P.2d 995 (<HOLDING>); State v. Parker, 872 P.2d 1041, 1044 (Utah
holding that the defendant was not deprived of a full and fair hearing on his postconviction motion by reasoning in part that the trial court set aside several days for the hearing holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing holding defendant may appeal order stemming from full restitution hearing even though motion for hearing filed ten days after sentencing holding trial court without jurisdiction to impose additional restitution because more than 60 days had passed between the sentencing hearing and the second restitution hearing holding defendant entitled to full restitution hearing where he requested it at sentencing