Opinion
A-13688
08-04-2021
S.D., a minor, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Jason A. Weiner, Jason Weiner & Associates, PC, Fairbanks, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Kevin M. Saxby, Judge. Trial Court No. 3AN-19-00059 DL
Jason A. Weiner, Jason Weiner & Associates, PC, Fairbanks, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
S.D., a minor, was charged with five counts of third-degree criminal mischief for vandalizing multiple properties with three other juvenile co-defendants.S.D. later entered an admission to one count of fourth-degree criminal mischief pursuant to a plea agreement. As part of the plea agreement, S.D. agreed to pay restitution and be jointly and severally liable for all of the property damage in the original charges. The State filed a proposed restitution order asserting that the total restitution owed was $29, 014.16. No timely objection to the restitution was filed. Instead, five months later, after S.D. was adjudicated on a new crime, his attorney objected to the restitution based on S.D.'s alleged inability to pay. Following a hearing on the issue in front of a magistrate judge, the superior court issued an order requiring S.D. to pay the full amount of restitution. S.D. now appeals that order.
See AS 11.46.482(a)(1) ("A person commits the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree if, having no right to do so or any reasonable ground to believe the person has such a right, with intent to damage property of another, the person damages property of another in an amount of $750 or more.").
See AS 11.46.484(a)(1).
On appeal, S.D. argues that the superior court erred in requiring S.D. to pay restitution to a victim that was an insurance company. We have previously held that a court may require a criminal defendant to pay restitution to a public or private insurance company that provided coverage or made payments to a crime victim. This holding has been applied to juvenile defendants. S.D. does not meaningfully distinguish this prior precedent, and we therefore find no merit to his contention that the superior court erred when it awarded restitution to an insurance company.
See Maillelle v. State, 276 P.3d 476, 477-78 (Alaska App. 2012); Lonis v. State, 998 P.2d 441, 443, 447-48 (Alaska App. 2000).
See D.S. v. State, 2020 WL 9179604, at *1 (Alaska App. Apr. 8, 2020) (unpublished).
S.D. also argues that it was error for the superior court to impose "joint and several liability" on S.D. Instead, he argues that liability for the losses should have been apportioned among the different juveniles. As the State points out, S.D. did not raise this argument below and he has only cursorily briefed the argument on appeal. In any case, we find no merit to this argument in the context of this case, where S.D. agreed as part of his plea agreement to joint and several liability for the property damage arising from the original charges.
Cf. Woodbury v. State, 151 P.3d 528, 532 (Alaska App. 2007) (citing Grasser v. State, 119 P.3d 1016, 1018 (Alaska App. 2005)) (explaining that if "a defendant wishes to challenge an already consummated plea agreement as being unlawful, the defendant must seek rescission of the agreement - not selective enforcement of only those provisions favorable to the defendant").
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.