McClure v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Mayfield v. State

    307 Ga. App. 630 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 12 times
    Defining “damages” for purpose of restitution statute

    " (Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) McClure v. State, 295 Ga. App. 465, 466 ( 673 SE2d 856) (2009). (a) Mayfield asserts the evidence was insufficient to show that Kanche owned the property on the date of the fire.

  2. Browning v. the State

    303 Ga. App. 805 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    (Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) McClure v. State, 295 Ga. App. 465, 466 ( 673 SE2d 856) (2009). As to the specific crime in this case,

  3. Galimore v. State

    321 Ga. App. 886 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times
    In Galimore, 321 Ga. App. at 887, 743 S.E.2d 545 (2013), and In the Interest of E. W., 290 Ga. App. at 96 (2), 97 (3), 658 S.E.2d 854 (2008), this Court stated that in addition to considering the amount of the victim's damages, the trial court must also consider the offender's present financial condition and future earning capacity, as well as the goal of rehabilitation to the offender.

    (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) McClure v. State, 295 Ga.App. 465, 466, 673 S.E.2d 856 (2009). The transcript shows that Galimore stole the victim's laptop computer, four Dell desktop computers, an “all in one” desktop computer, a server (collectively, the “computer-related items”), a 27-inch television, a DVD player, a game console, hand and power tools, and a jar of coins.

  4. Futch v. State

    314 Ga. App. 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that “based on an amendment to the restitution statutes in 2005, a trial court is no longer required to make written findings of fact concerning the factors to be considered in determining the restitution amount, as set forth in OCGA § 17–14–10.”

    When reviewing a restitution award, we must ascertain whether the restitution award was supported by the preponderance of the evidence. McClure v. State, 295 Ga.App. 465, 466, 673 S.E.2d 856 (2009). The State has the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense.

  5. State v. Vargas

    152 Idaho 240 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012)

    Salvage value generally will not be the appropriate measure if it was the defendant's actions that caused the item to be useless for anything other than scrap. State v. Cope, 7 Ariz.App. 295, 438 P.2d 442, 444–45 (1968); McClure v. State, 295 Ga.App. 465, 673 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2009); State v. Albert, 117 Or. 179, 242 P. 1116, 1118 (1926). Johnson, 149 Idaho at 263, 233 P.3d at 194 (emphasis added).

  6. State v. Johnson

    149 Idaho 259 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 8 times

    Salvage value generally will not be the appropriate measure if it was the defendant's actions that caused the item to be useless for anything other than scrap. State v. Cope, 7 Ariz.App. 295, 438 P.2d 442, 444-15 (1968); McClure v. State, 295 Ga.App. 465, 673 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2009); State v. Albert, 117 Or. 179, 242 P. 1116, 1118 (1926). Because the salvage value was not necessarily determinative of the market value of the wire in its condition when stolen, before being chopped up for sale to PSR, we look for other evidence of market value.