PEOPLE OF MI V RICHARD DOUGLAS TARANTO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 25, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 191371
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 94-068021-FH
RICHARD DOUGLAS TARANTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: D.F. Walsh,* P.J., and R.P. Griffin** and W.P. Cynar,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to malicious destruction of property under $100, MCL
750.377a; MSA 28.609(1), and was sentenced to two years’ probation and ordered to pay a fine of
$100, costs of $1,900, restitution to the victim of $135 plus $1,024.11 for the cost of repairing the
damage to her car and $720 for supervisory costs. Defendant was also ordered to have no further
contact with the victim. Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and
remand. This case has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(A).
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in assessing costs and in calculating the amount of
restitution to be paid. The prosecutor conceded that the trial court erred in this regard. We agree. In
assessing costs to be taxed, the trial court failed to determine the actual costs of prosecution in this case.
Hence, we remand the matter for the trial court to make such a determination. People v Barber, 14
Mich App 395; 165 NW2d 608 (1968). In addition, restitution can only be ordered for those losses
that are easily ascertained and measured and are a direct result of defendant’s criminal acts. People v
White, 212 Mich App 298 536 NW2d 876 (1995). Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant’s
criminal acts resulted in damage to the right side of the victim’s car and restitution can only be ordered
*Former Court of Appeals judges, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
**Former Supreme Court justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to
Administrative Order 1996-10.
-1
for costs associated with repair of that portion of the victim’s car. The trial court erred in ordering
restitution for repair to all the damage to the victim’s car. The award of costs and the award of
restitution regarding damage to the car are vacated and the matter is remanded for determination of the
costs of prosecution and the costs of repairs to the right side of the victim’s car only.
Defendant also argues that his sentence is disproportionate because it exceeds the
recommendation of the probation department. Defendant has waived this issue. People v Ward, 206
Mich App 38; 520 NW2d 363 (1994). Defendant’s sentence, except for the costs and restitution
amount, is affirmed.
Finally, defendant argues that the hearing on remand must be before a different judge. We
disagree. Because the matters remanded do not allow for discretion and only require calculation of
amounts due, the waste and duplication of assigning it to another judge would outweigh any benefit.
People v Evans, 156 Mich App 68; 401 NW2d 312 (1986).
Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for action in accordance with this opinion. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Daniel F. Walsh
/s/ Robert P. Griffin
/s/ Walter P. Cynar
-2
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.
