From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Droppelman

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Oct 24, 2011
No. 66600-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2011)

Opinion

No. 66600-2-I

10-24-2011

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. PAUL A. DROPPELMAN, Appellant.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Per Curiam. Paul Droppelman appeals the restitution ordered after his guilty plea to vehicular assault. He contends, and the State concedes, that the evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite causal connection between his offense and a list of medical expenses for two victims. State v. Hahn, 100 Wn. App. 391, 399, 996 P.2d 1125 (2000) (there must be a causal connection between the victim's medical expenses and the crime; a list of medical services rendered on or after the date of the offense is insufficient, without more, to establish the requisite connection). We accept the concession and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because the issue of whether the State may submit additional evidence on remand is not adequately briefed, we leave that question for the court to decide on remand. See State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960, 195 P.3d 506 (2008); State v. Dennis, 101 Wn. App. 223, 6 P.3d 1173 (2000).

Remanded for further proceedings.

FOR THE COURT:

____

____

____


Summaries of

State v. Droppelman

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Oct 24, 2011
No. 66600-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2011)
Case details for

State v. Droppelman

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. PAUL A. DROPPELMAN, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Oct 24, 2011

Citations

No. 66600-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2011)