Opinion
No. 37666-1-II.
May 5, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 07-1-03163-6, Ronald E. Culpepper, J., entered April 17, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Penoyar, A.C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and Hunt, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Gary Dean Fallis appeals a restitution order entered by the Pierce County Superior Court as part of his sentence for domestic violence violation of a court order and stalking. Fallis contends that the court exceeded its authority when it ordered him to pay the cost of the security system the victim installed. We affirm, finding that the expenses constituted funds lost as a direct result of Fallis's crimes.
A commissioner of this court considered the matter pursuant to RAP 18.14 and referred it to a panel of judges.
FACTS
The victim is Fallis's former wife, Erica Buehler. Fallis is prohibited by a protection order from having any contact with her. In the period between February 6 and June 25, 2007, the Bonney Lake Police Department received 15 incident reports pertaining to alleged order violations. The State initially charged Fallis with four counts of violation of the court order, alleging that the criminal acts occurred on June 13, 2007. It amended that information to change the date of those violations to June 14, 2007, and add two more charges: another protection order violation, alleged to have occurred on February 17, 2007; and a stalking charge, allegedly occurring during the period of May 26, 2006 to June 25, 2007. Fallis ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of violating the protection order on June 14, 2007, and the stalking charge.
This was a "Newton" plea. See State v. Newton, 87 Wn.2d 363, 552 P.2d 682 (1976). Fallis agreed that the court could review the affidavits of probable cause.
Buehler asked for restitution in the amount of (1) the replacement cost of items lost when Fallis took her truck from the parking lot where she worked and (2) the cost of the security system she had installed in February and May, 2007. She testified at the sentencing and restitution hearings that the security system was "an absolute necessity" because Fallis harassed her "extensively," appearing at her home many, many times, and repeatedly threatening to kill her and burn down her house. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 27. Buehler also told the court that Fallis had beaten her up "really bad" a number of times, that she often had people stay with her for protection, and that sometimes their cars were vandalized during the night. RP at 13.
The court denied restitution for the property in the truck because the State had not charged Fallis with theft. It found that the security system was a "reasonable precaution" to provide some security against Fallis's continuing protection order violations and threats, and awarded the $1,595.12 requested. Fallis appeals, contending that except for counseling costs, the legislature has not authorized compensation for costs related to a victim's fear.
ANALYSIS
A court's authority to order restitution is statutory, and a sentencing court cannot exceed the authority granted. State v. Martin, 137 Wn.2d 149, 155, 975 P.2d 1020 (1999). The governing statute is RCW 9.94A.753(3), which provides, in pertinent part:
[R]estitution ordered by a court pursuant to a criminal conviction shall be based on easily ascertainable damages for injury to or loss of property, actual expenses incurred for treatment for injury to persons, and lost wages resulting from injury. Restitution shall not include reimbursement for damages for mental anguish, pain and suffering, or other intangible losses, but may include the costs of counseling reasonably related to the offense.
The statute must be broadly interpreted to accomplish the legislature's purpose, which is to require the defendant to face the consequences of his criminal conduct. State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517, 524, 166 P.3d 1167 (2007); State v. King, 113 Wn. App. 243, 299, 54 P.3d 1218 (2002).
Property loss as contemplated by the statute includes all funds expended by the victim as a direct result of the crime. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d at 524; State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272, 287, 119 P.3d 350 (2005). The courts have held that monies expended to investigate a crime and to prevent additional injury from the criminal conduct constitute property loss under the statute. See Tobin, 161 Wn.2d at 529-30 (trial court properly ordered restitution of the costs of surveying geoduck beds to reset harvesting levels following Tobin's large illegal harvesting operation); and State v. Smith, 119 Wn.2d 385, 388, 831 P.2d 1082 (1992) (restitution could include the cost of labor and supplies needed to unload, load, and reset surveillance cameras after a burglary). Like the survey undertaken in Tobin, Buehler's security system installation was aimed at mitigating or preventing harm threatened by Fallis's stalking behavior. It is property loss under the statute. We affirm the restitution order.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
ARMSTRONG, J. and HUNT, J. concur.