Opinion
A-13361
08-11-2021
CANDACE BARBARA DIAMA, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Jane B. Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, LLC, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Mackenzie C. Olson, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and Clyde Ed Sniffen Jr., Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage Trial Court No. 3AN-16-08429 CR, J. Patrick Hanley, Judge.
Jane B. Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, LLC, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Mackenzie C. Olson, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and Clyde "Ed" Sniffen Jr., Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Candace Barbara Diama pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to fourth-degree criminal mischief for intentionally damaging the motorcycle of her then-partner, Michael Schoen.
AS 11.46.484(a)(1). Diama was sentenced for this offense after she failed to comply with the requirements of a suspended entry of judgment issued earlier in this case.
The district court held a restitution hearing at which Schoen was the only person to testify. Schoen testified that he took pictures of the damaged motorcycle and sent the pictures to a local Yamaha dealership. He also testified that a person at the dealership provided a list of the parts that they determined were damaged based on the pictures and an estimate of the cost to replace each part. This list was admitted into evidence, as were pictures of the damage to the motorcycle. The total estimated cost for materials and labor was $3, 304.47. The district court awarded restitution in this amount.
Diama appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution award. Diama contends that the list of needed repairs that was admitted into evidence might not actually have been from the Yamaha dealership and therefore that this evidence was unreliable. And she contends that, even if the list did come from the dealership, the fact that the person who made the list did not physically examine the motorcycle makes the resulting estimate of repair costs overly speculative.
When the accused, on appeal, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to restitution, this Court "does not pass on issues of credibility, which remain within the sole province of the sentencing court." Instead, we construe the record in the light most favorable to the restitution order and determine whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the disputed amount of restitution was established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Noffsinger v. State, 850 P.2d 647, 650 (Alaska App. 1993).
Id.
Here, the evidence was sufficient to support the restitution award. Schoen testified that the list of needed repairs was from a Yamaha dealership, and the document contains indicia of reliability, such as part numbers for the parts that needed to be replaced and whether those parts were in stock. The list was compiled based on an assessment of repairs that were currently needed, as opposed to speculation about possible future repairs. The district court could reasonably rely on this list.
See Nukapigak v. State, 562 P.2d 697, 701 & n.2 (Alaska 1977) (allowing sentencing courts to consider reports if they are corroborated or substantiated by supporting data or information); Fee v. State, 656 P.2d 1202, 1205-06 (Alaska App. 1982) (allowing courts to rely on victim testimony as to the value of damaged property if there is no conflicting evidence of value).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.