STATE v. CRUM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAVID AUSTIN CRUM, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 16-0468 FILED 4-6-2017 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2013-440987-001 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge RESTITUTION AWARD AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Michael Valenzuela Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Terry Reid Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CRUM Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maurice Portley1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined. P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 David Austin Crum appeals the restitution order pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the following reasons, we affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 A jury convicted Crum of one count of sexual assault and one count of kidnapping, both class 2 felonies, one count of misdemeanor assault, and three counts of sexual abuse, class 5 felonies. The jury found several aggravating circumstances related to the felony convictions, and Crum was subsequently sentenced to ten years in prison, concurrently, on the two felonies; six months’ imprisonment on the misdemeanor assault conviction, with credit for the six months he had served; and his sentence was suspended on the sexual abuse convictions. Crum was also placed on lifetime supervised probation and ordered to register as a sex offender. Crum then filed a notice of appeal challenging his convictions.2 ¶3 Subsequently, the State filed a motion for a restitution hearing, that was granted and a restitution hearing was set. Crum waived his appearance at the hearing, and the victim testified telephonically. The victim testified that she was seeking to recover wages for the loss of one month’s wages as a part-time worker, and the medication she had to purchase after the assault. The trial court ordered Crum to pay the sum of The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution. 1 This court affirmed Crum’s convictions, but modified his sentence to give him an additional day of presentence credit. State v. Crum, No. 1 CACR 16-0014 (Ariz. App. March 28, 2017) (mem. decision). 2 2 STATE v. CRUM Decision of the Court $977.24 to the victim for lost wages, and $161.07 for medications she had to purchase, for a total of $1,138.31. Crum then filed a notice of appeal and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 134033(A). DISCUSSION ¶4 This is an appeal under Anders, supra, and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Crum has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Crum was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not file one. ¶5 We have read and considered the opening brief, and have searched the record for reversible error related to the restitution order. We find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. ¶6 A victim can recover economic damage losses resulting from a defendant’s acts, which includes lost wages and out of pocket expenses. A.R.S. §§ 13-105(16), 13-603(C); State v. Lindsey, 191 Ariz. 195, 197-98 (App. 1997). Here, the court conducted a restitution hearing after Crum was convicted, and there was evidence of the victim’s lost wages and out of pocket expenses for medications related to Crum’s assault. The court considered the testimony of the victim, including cross-examination and argument by Crum’s counsel challenging the full amount of medications, as well as challenging the request for lost wages given that the victim was paid for some of her time away from work after the assault. The court then determined the amount of restitution Crum would owe to the victim. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering restitution or the amount of restitution. 3 STATE v. CRUM Decision of the Court CONCLUSION ¶7 After this decision has been filed, counsel’s obligation to represent Crum on the restitution issue has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Crum of the status of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Crum can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 Accordingly, we affirm the restitution order. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
