1. Second, appellant’s potential inability to pay the entire amount does not require us to conclude that his monthly payments to Aimee Maidi serve no rehabilitative purpose. See Belfry, 416 N.W.2d at 813 (the defendant’s payment to the victim serves a rehabilitative purpose). Appellant’s payments provide a monthly reminder of the costs endured by his victim, and may deter him or others from committing similar crimes. Third, we conclude that the sentencing court adequately considered appellant’s ability to pay. The sentencing court ordered appellant to pay more than $147,000 in restitution in $200 monthly installments “until the sum is paid in full.” After finding that appellant earned $6.50 per hour and considering appellant’s current debts and obligations, the sentencing c p.1992) (<HOLDING>). Finally, although the sentencing court found
holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay courtappointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed holding defendant must pay restitution award in excess of 100000 that would require defendant paying 25 percent of his monthly income 5046 years to pay holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court holding defendant must pay restitution award of 16500 that would require defendant paying 20 percent of his prison earnings 92 years to pay