Opinion
No. 37814-1-II.
May 5, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 07-1-06036-9, Ronald E. Culpepper, J., entered May 29, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Van Deren, C.J., and Hunt, J.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Dustin Riggles appeals a restitution order entered by the Pierce County Superior Court as part of his sentence for residential burglary and first degree theft, arguing insufficient evidence supported his conviction and trial court error. We affirm.
A commissioner of this court considered the matter under RAP 18.14 and referred it to a panel of judges.
FACTS
Riggles admitted that he entered Deanna Stevens' residence unlawfully and stole property worth more than $1,500. She did not have receipts for any of the stolen items but provided a declaration for the purposes of restitution, listing the items and including descriptions and her opinion regarding their value:
1 Sisco, Inc., gray anti-theft safe, valued at $550.00 Approximately 2 feet high and uses combination key to open
1 Emerald ring, purchased at Zales, valued at $290.00 Lab created Marquis emerald — 10K gold — diamond and emerald accents
1 Fire Topaz ring, purchased at Zales, valued at $289.00 Cushion cut Mystic Fire topaz ring — 10K gold — 4 prong setting
1 Ruby ring, purchased at Zales, valued at $579.00 Lab created ruby cathedral ring — 10K gold with diamond accents
1 Sapphire ring, blue, purchased at Zales, valued at $429.00 Lab created Marquis sapphire ring — 10K gold with white sapphire accents
1 Grandmother's ring, valued at $300.00 Gold ring — several stones — sapphire, ruby, yellow topaz, emerald, amethyst
1 Gold chain, valued at $150.00 Chain is 18 inches long — yellow gold
1 Clown charm, valued at $200.00 Clown face and hat — all yellow gold — 3 or 4 diamonds
Ex. 1. Stevens asked for $2,787.00 in restitution.
Defense counsel objected, noting that there was no supporting documentation and no sworn testimony from Stevens. Counsel also noted that she had received Stevens' declaration only a brief time before the hearing. She did not ask for a continuance. Riggles also addressed the court. He did not deny taking the items listed but asserted that his brother had been with him during the burglary and, therefore, he should be responsible for only half of the amount requested.
The court found that it was not unusual for there to be no receipts, and the items claimed were modestly priced. It awarded the $2,787.00 requested. Riggles appeals.
ANALYSIS
Riggles first contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish the amount of the loss. He also claims that the trial court denied him his due process rights when it did not require that the victim be present to testify about the value of the stolen property.
"[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." RCW 9.94A.753(3). This 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. See State v. Tobin, 132 Wn. App. 161, 173, 130 P.3d 426 (2006), aff'd, 161 Wn.2d 517, 166 P.3d 1167 (2007); State v. King, 113 Wn. App. 243, 299, 54 P.3d 1218 (2002).
"Easily ascertainable" damages are those tangible damages that are proven by sufficient evidence to exist. The amount of loss does not need to be shown with mathematical certainty. Tobin, 132 Wn. App. at 173; State v. Bush, 34 Wn. App. 121, 123-24, 659 P.2d 1127 (1983). The evidence is sufficient "'if it affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss and does not subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.'" State v. Fleming, 75 Wn. App. 270, 274-75, 877 P.2d 243 (1994) (quoting State v. Pollard, 66 Wn. App. 779, 785, 834 P.2d 51 (1992)).
Information pertaining to the amount of loss can be provided in the form of letters and declarations. Tobin, 132 Wn. App. at 175; State v. Lohr, 130 Wn. App. 904, 910-11, 125 P.3d 977 (2005). And the owner is always qualified to provide that information. McCurdy v. Union Pac. R.R., 68 Wn.2d 457, 468-69, 413 P.2d 617 (1966); Cunningham v. Town of Tieton, 60 Wn.2d 434, 436-37, 374 P.2d 375 (1962).
In a criminal case, the value of an item is proven in the same manner as in a civil case. See State v. Riley, 34 Wn. App. 529, 535-36, 663 P.2d 145 (1983).
A trial court has discretion to determine the amount of restitution. Pollard, 66 Wn. App. at 785. If substantial credible evidence supports the amount ordered, there is no abuse of discretion. Pollard, 66 Wn. App. at 785.
Stevens described each item of property stolen and provided her opinion of its value. The descriptions were detailed enough to permit the court, as fact finder, to reasonably conclude that the items actually existed and to provide some basis for an objective valuation. The values asserted were not clearly excessive. That is adequate credible evidence to support the award. It should also be noted that the lost items could not be appraised because Riggles or an accomplice had disposed of them. To deny Stevens damages would permit Riggles to escape the consequences of his conduct.
Riggles was provided a hearing and the opportunity to rebut the State's evidence. Defense counsel objected to Stevens' declaration but offered no rebuttal evidence. And when given the opportunity to speak to the court, Riggles himself did not challenge the value, number, or identity of the items claimed but argued only about how much of the loss should be his responsibility. There was no denial of due process.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
HUNT, J. and VAN DEREN, C.J., concur.