Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0721
09-18-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BRANDON JAY FELBER, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Colby Mills Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Kathryn L. Petroff Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-008239-001
The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Colby Mills
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Kathryn L. Petroff
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. THOMPSON, Judge:
¶1 Brandon J. Felber (Felber) appeals the trial court's award of $11,443.80 in restitution to victim K.D. Finding no error, we affirm.
¶2 In 2007, Felber and an accomplice burgled victim's K.D.'s home, beating K.D. unconscious when he returned home mid-burglary. In 2012, Felber was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Felber's convictions were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Felber, 1 CA-CR 12-0808, 2013 WL 6844265 (Ariz. App. Dec. 26, 2013) (mem. decision).
¶3 In 2013, the trial court held a restitution hearing. K.D. appeared telephonically and testified under oath to his financial losses and submitted an itemized list of items stolen. K.D. testified to expenses that had not been covered by the Victim's Compensation Fund as well as to the replacement costs of the stolen items including guns, tools and electronics. K.D.'s handwritten list of expenses was admitted into evidence without objection. K.D. testified that the replacement costs were derived from websites, gun shops and Home Depot. Defense counsel had the opportunity to, and did, cross-examine K.D.
¶4 The trial court found victim credible and awarded restitution in the amount of $11,443.80. Felber timely appealed and we have jurisdiction under Arizona Constitution Article VI, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statues §§ 12-120.21(A)(2), 13-4031, and -4033(A).
¶5 Felber asserts on appeal that the trial court's restitution award to K.D. is not supported by the evidence. We review restitution orders for an abuse of discretion and view the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's order. State v. Lewis, 222 Ariz. 321, 323, ¶ 2, 214 P.3d 409, 411 (App. 2009). An abuse of discretion occurs when "the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice." State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 297, n.18, 660 P.2d 1208, 1224, n.18 (1983). A trial court has "substantial discretion" in determining the amount of restitution owed a victim. State v. Madrid, 207 Ariz. 296, 298, ¶ 5, 85 P.3d 1054, 1056 (App. 2004). This court "will uphold a restitution award if it bears a reasonable relationship to the victim's loss." Id. (citing State v. Lindsley, 191 Ariz. 195, 197, 953 P.2d 1248, 1250 (App. 1997)).
Felber has not challenged the stipulated restitution award of $3,925.64 to the Victim's Compensation Fund.
¶6 Felber asserts on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding victim $11,443.80. Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion. The restitution award is affirmed.