Theodorou v. State

Full title: Jerome THEODOROU v. STATE of Alabama

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Dec 11, 2009

53 So. 3d 150 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)

Opinion

No. CR-07-0615.

October 2, 2009. Rehearing Denied December 11, 2009.

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court (CC-05-344); A. Philip Reich II, Judge.

Billy C. Burney II, Decatur, for appellant.

Troy King, atty. gen., and James B. Prude, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.

WINDOM, Judge.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

KELLUM and MAIN, JJ., concur.

WISE, P.J., and WELCH, J., dissent, with opinions.

WISE, Presiding Judge, dissenting.

I believe the trial court erred in its calculation of the amount of restitution due from Theodorou. For example, the court awarded $6,616.58 in lost revenue for the days when the business could not operate without the equipment. Also, it appears that the court awarded $4,572.50 for some type of payments the business had previously made on the equipment. The caselaw regarding the amount of restitution a victim may recover as a result of a defendant's criminal acts is ambiguous, and the application of that law is particularly difficult in cases involving receiving stolen property. Therefore, I urge the Alabama Supreme Court to clarify the caselaw governing restitution. Nevertheless, I do not believe that all of the losses Bussman Construction Company suffered were attributable to Theodorou's criminal act of receiving the stolen property. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

WELCH, J., concurs.

WELCH, Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent, and I join Presiding Judge Wise's dissent. I write specially to point out that Jerome Theodorou was ordered to pay restitution calculated from the date that the victim's property was stolen in September 2004. However, Theodorou was not charged with theft of property; he was charged with and found guilty of receiving stolen property. The evidence reflected that Theodorou did not take possession of the victims property until January 20, 2005. Therefore, I believe that the monetary damages incurred by the victim between the date of the theft in September 2004 and Theodorou's receipt of the stolen property on January 20, 2005, were improperly attributed to Theodorou and should not have been assessed against Theodorou as restitution.