Opinion
14-P-338
05-28-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. JOSHUA BRUFFEE.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The sole issue on appeal concerns restitution. Upon review of the briefs and the record appendix, we discern nothing that would cause us to conclude the judge abused his discretion or otherwise erred as matter of law. See and compare Commonwealth v. Nawn, 394 Mass. 1, 6-8 (1985), a case which controls the instant case in material respects.
It may reasonably be inferred from the evidence that the damage to the door and windows securing the home, and loss of the stolen and damaged items, were causally related to the actions of the defendant and his companions. "Even if the [defendant] did not personally take any of the stolen items, breaking and entering into someone's home certainly facilitates the taking of the victim's property by allowing others to enter the premises. The order of restitution bears a proper relationship to the crime of conviction, both in kind and proportion." Commonwealth v. Palmer P., 61 Mass. App. Ct. 230, 233 (2004).
We think that the amount of the judge's restitution order was appropriate, as it could properly be deemed casually related to the defendant's actions. See Commonwealth v. Cassanova, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 750, 755 (2006).
The defendant's hearing was well within the standards set forth in Nawn. The defendant had the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and articulate his opinion concerning the amount of restitution. See Nawn, supra at 7. The defendant did not rebut the testimony with any other evidence of value.
Accordingly, based substantially on the reasoning and authorities set out in the Commonwealth's brief, we affirm the judge's restitution order and the denial to reconsider.
Order of restitution and order denying motion for reconsideration affirmed.
By the Court (Grainger, Brown & Milkey, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Clerk Entered: May 28, 2015.