|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
66657-6 |
| Title of Case: |
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Adam Ray Stevens, Appellant |
| File Date: |
06/11/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from Snohomish Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 10-1-00597-2 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 01/21/2011 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable David a Superior Court Judge Kurtz |
JUDGES
------
| Authored by | Marlin Appelwick |
| Concurring: | Mary Kay Becker |
| J. Robert Leach |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | David Bruce Koch |
| | Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC |
| | 1908 E Madison St |
| | Seattle, WA, 98122-2842 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | John Jeppe Juhl |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | 3000 Rockefeller Ave |
| | Everett, WA, 98201-4046 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
) No. 66657-6-I
Respondent,
) DIVISION ONE
v.
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ADAM RAY STEVENS,
)
Appellant. FILED: June 11, 2012
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appelwick, J. -- Stevens pleaded guilty to residential burglary and agreed to pay
restitution for losses resulting from the crime. Stevens argues that the trial court erred
when it ordered restitution for property that was not part of the crime. We affirm.
FACTS
During the afternoon on March 12, 2010, Nicole Goettler pulled her pickup truck
off to the side of the road. Two males dressed in dark clothing and carrying backpacks
ran out of the woods on the opposite side of the road. One of the men crossed the
road, threw his backpack in the bed of the truck, and climbed into the passenger side of
the truck. The other man, who was carrying two backpacks, could not get across the
road due to traffic. The second man continued walking down the road and the truck
pulled back onto the road.
No. 66657-6-I/2
Officer W. Aukerman stopped the truck and requested that another officer look
for the second man. Officer Aukerman determined that Goettler lived just a few blocks
away. Officers were dispatched to her residence, where a construction worker
informed them that a male matching the second man's description had entered the
home. The officers found Adam Stevens hiding in a camper trailer. He had two
backpacks with him. They found cash in Stevens's pockets, and the backpack
contained jewelry, electronics, mail, and credit cards belonging to Robert and Pamela
Williams.
Stevens was charged with residential burglary. He pleaded guilty. In exchange
for the guilty plea, the State agreed not to charge Stevens for possession of the stolen
credit cards. As part of the plea agreement, Stevens agreed to pay restitution for the
charged and uncharged crimes in Lake Stevens Police Department case number 10-
0616.1
The police records for that case number include a list of items, given to officers
on March 16, 2010, that the Williamses claimed were missing after the burglary. The
stolen items were listed as being worth $34,609.50. On June 28, 2010, Robert
Williams prepared a victim impact statement that listed the amount of stolen goods at
$66,956. Williams also wrote that most of the jewelry was not recovered because
"[t]hey were caught the second time they robbed our home." (Emphasis in original.)
At sentencing, based on the assertion in the victim impact statement that there
were two burglaries, the court expressed confusion and thought that the amount of
1 Different portions of the record refer to that case number as 10-616, 10-0616,
and 10-00616. There is no dispute that they all refer to the same case.
2
No. 66657-6-I/3
restitution owed might be significantly less than the Williamses' total loss. No evidence
corroborates a previous burglary, and such a possibility is not mentioned in any of the
police records. Ultimately, the trial court reserved the issue of restitution for a later
date.
At a January 10, 2011 restitution hearing, the State requested restitution in the
amount of $34,609.50, pursuant to the stolen items listed in the police records.
Defense counsel argued that the State was still including amounts from a previous
burglary, and that some of the items included in that amount had either been returned
or were still being held by the police. The trial court awarded $26,395.91 to the
Williamses and $8,213.59 to State Farm Insurance for covered losses, for a total of
$34,609.50. But, it left open the possibility of a future modification and requested that
the parties determine what items, if any, had been returned to the Williams, and
whether any of the claimed losses were not attributable to Stevens. It set the matter for
another hearing.
On January 25, the State reduced its request for restitution to State Farm by
$1,046.23, reflecting that some items had been recovered and returned to the
Williamses. The State increased its request for restitution to the Williamses to
$58,874.37. The State's evidence identified the victim's claim of loss, the inventory of
property recovered, the identification of items returned, and items remaining in
possession of the police department. The court reduced the amount owed to State
Farm, but declined to increase the amount owed to the Williamses.
Stevens appeals.
DISCUSSION
3
No. 66657-6-I/4
We review the trial court's restitution order for an abuse of discretion. State v.
Hunotte, 69 Wn. App. 670, 674, 851 P.2d 694 (1993). The court abuses its discretion
when its decision is manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for
untenable reasons. State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675, 679-80, 974 P.2d 828 (1999).
The trial court must order restitution when a defendant is convicted of an offense
which results in damage to, or loss of, property. RCW 9.94A.753(5); State v. Griffith,
164 Wn.2d 960, 965, 195 P.3d 506 (2008). Restitution is permitted only for losses that
are causally connected to the charged crimes, unless the defendant expressly agrees
to pay. Id. at 965-66. The State bears the burden of establishing restitution by a
preponderance of the evidence. State v. Dennis, 101 Wn. App. 223, 226-27, 6 P.3d
1173 (2000).
Stevens argues that he did not agree to pay restitution for all of the Williamses'
claimed losses. Rather, he asserts he only agreed to pay restitution for the charged
and uncharged crimes described in case number 10-0616, which include only the
March 12 burglary and possession of stolen credit cards. He claims the trial court
included amounts that were apparently taken in another burglary, as referenced in the
victim impact statement.
But, there was only one residential burglary alleged here. On March 12, police
officers arrested Stevens and his accomplices. Stevens pleaded guilty and agreed to
pay restitution for the crimes described in the police records. The police record for
case number 10-0616 reference a burglary that occurred on March 12, and include a
list of stolen items that the Williamses provided on March 16. Those records do not
mention a previous burglary. The only mention of a possible second burglary is a
4
No. 66657-6-I/5
handwritten statement by one of the victims that some jewelry was not recovered,
because they were caught the second time they robbed the home. There was no
evidence before the court that a prior burglary had occurred, been witnessed, been
reported to police, or prosecuted. The statement was mere speculation as to why the
missing items were not recovered when the burglars were apprehended.
The State proved the extent of the Williamses' loss by a preponderance of the
evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Stevens
owed restitution for the items that the Williamses claimed were missing after the
burglary.
We affirm.
WE CONCUR:
5
|