Ex parte Jerome Theodorou. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Jerome Theodorou v. State of Alabama)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/30/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1090393 Ex parte Jerome T h e o d o r o u PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : Jerome T h e o d o r o u v. State o f Alabama) (Lawrence C i r c u i t C o u r t , CC-05-344; C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , CR-07-0615) SMITH, Justice. Jerome Theodorou p l e a d e d stolen 1 property, Section see § 13A-8-19, guilty tothird-degree receiving 13A-8-19, A l a . Code 1 975, 1 a n d was A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , p r o v i d e s : "(a) R e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y w h i c h does n o t exceed five hundred dollars ($500) i n value constitutes receiving stolen property i n the third 1090393 sentenced t o 12 months which both trial court $33,417.94 order Ala. the State entered Theodorou t o pay Appeals affirmed the o r d e r i n a n u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum, Theodorou v. September of Criminal O c t . 2, and t h i s of c e r t i o r a r i . Appeals. a "hammer was s t o l e n . 2009] So. 3d Court g r a n t e d Theodorou's We (Ala. petition affirm. and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 2004, a backhoe c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e i n Town C r e e k . as evidence, the Theodorou appealed the r e s t i t u t i o n The C o u r t Facts In presented requiring of Criminal [No. CR-07-0615, a writ order a hearing at 15-18-78(a), Crim. App. 2 0 0 9 ) , for an Following See § 1975. restitution State, and Theodorou inrestitution. to the Court Code i n prison. was stolen from a A hydraulic device described a t t a c h m e n t " was a t t a c h e d t o t h e b a c k h o e when i t The b a c k h o e a n d t h e hammer a t t a c h m e n t b e l o n g e d t o B u s s m a n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o m p a n y , w h i c h was p e r f o r m i n g w o r k a t t h e construction site. able to obtain A f t e r t h r e e d a y s , B u s s m a n C o n s t r u c t i o n was a replacement backhoe to continue working at degree. "(b) R e c e i v i n g degree i s a Class A stolen property misdemeanor." 2 i n the third 1090393 the construction site. In March attachment According hammer 2005, were to the stolen recovered Theodorou, from he named James Theodorou purchased the equipment i n G u l f performing and that transported where was degree receiving pleaded guilty indicted stolen and t h e f r o m an t e s t i f i e d that following Hurricane 10 m i l e s t h e equipment had been Theodorou property. 20, 2005, the equipment Lawrence County, approximately site hammer Shores, Alabama, w h i l e h u r r i c a n e - d i s a s t e r work he l a t e r the the backhoe on J a n u a r y Cannon. and Theodorou's purchased a t t a c h m e n t f o r $45,000 individual backhoe he was Ivan, t o h i s house i n from the c o n s t r u c t i o n stolen. on A u g u s t property. to third-degree he 12, 2005, On June for first- 20, 2006, he r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y and was s e n t e n c e d t o 12 m o n t h s inj a i l . the s e n t e n c e and p l a c e d Theodorou The t r i a l on court 12 m o n t h s ' suspended supervised probation. On September 14, 2006, the trial court conducted a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f r e s t i t u t i o n T h e o d o r o u w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o p a y . Theodorou and D a v i d Bussman, Bussman C o n s t r u c t i o n , t e s t i f i e d at that 3 hearing. t h e owner o f 1090393 According attachment 2004 to cost Bussman, $86,728.86. for Bussman had be testified and t h a t returned t o him had n o t been i t t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t have any v a l u e replaced. Bussman o f $64,500 $1,612.50 Construction f o r the loss ($20,616.36 received of the backhoe, proceeds received was of the backhoe estimated that $6,616.58. amount b y d i v i d i n g the loss He t h a t Bussman resulting revenue that from he a and and Construction days attachment. those calculated o f Bussman t h e y e a r by t h e number o f w o r k i n g days 2 leaving f o rthree a n d t h e hammer testified the gross insurance of t h e backhoe unable to operate at the c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e Bussman and had f o r the backhoe). In a d d i t i o n , Bussman t e s t i f i e d the theft 2 stored f o r t h e hammer a t t a c h m e n t f o r the difference i n the cost insurance days attachment Bussman o f $22,228.86 after not i n d i c a t e f o r the proceeds that does coverage properly for i n May insurance t h a t t h e hammer a t t a c h m e n t was hammer t h e backhoe the record the b u t n o t f o r t h e hammer a t t a c h m e n t . backhoe the and i t , B u s s m a n p u r c h a s e d t h e hammer $20,616.36. loss backhoe He p u r c h a s e d f o r $66,112.50; although when he p u r c h a s e d to the three that Construction i n the year, with The r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e what happened t o t h e backhoe was r e c o v e r e d f r o m T h e o d o r o u . 4 1090393 the r e s u l t i n g number working day. arrive representing Bussman t h e n m u l t i p l i e d t h a t 3 $4,572.50 also as a testified result of Bussman c a l c u l a t e d t h a t the depreciation with backhoe before per number b y t h r e e t o that Bussman Construction the replacement After sum b y c o m b i n i n g t h e e s t i m a t e d i t was s t o l e n , a l l of which, attachment, backhoe $1,612.50 and $6,616.58 sum included the t r i a l court the insurance for lost revenue, proceeds and to entered f o r t h e hammer i n the cost paid $4,572.50 an i n t h e amount o f $20,616.36 f o r the difference according proceeds. r e q u i r i n g Theodorou t o pay r e s t i t u t i o n That amount c e r t a i n m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s h e h a d made o n the r e s t i t u t i o n hearing, $33,417.94. lost of the backhoe. Bussman, were n o t c o v e r e d by t h e i n s u r a n c e order revenue a t $6,616.58. Bussman of the average f o r the of the backhoe, f o r replacement loss. Bussman t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d c o u n t e d e a c h weekday as a " w o r k i n g d a y . " He s t a t e d t h a t t h e a c t u a l n u m b e r o f w o r k i n g d a y s was l e s s b e c a u s e o f f a c t o r s s u c h a s b a d w e a t h e r . He h a d n o t d e t e r m i n e d t h e p r e c i s e number o f d a y s i n t h e y e a r a c t u a l l y w o r k e d , h o w e v e r , b u t he s t a t e d t h a t a l o w e r number o f d a y s a c t u a l l y worked would have r e s u l t e d i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f a h i g h e r a v e r a g e r e v e n u e p e r d a y . He a l s o t e s t i f i e d o n c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t he d i d n o t know i f t h e w e a t h e r w o u l d h a v e prevented Bussman Construction from working at the c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e on t h e t h r e e days i n q u e s t i o n . 3 5 1090393 Theodorou denied by filed operation appealed the Appeals. On in an of dissented, This October 2, law order. Court on for on order 2009, to the Presiding new 24, the Court which 2007. Court the Wise of Criminal Appeals, trial and was Theodorou of C r i m i n a l affirmed Judge trial, court's Judge Welch opinion. granted March a November memorandum, each w i t h certiorari motion restitution unpublished restitution a 4, Theodorou's p e t i t i o n f o r the writ of 2010. Discussion "The forth i n the et seq., So. 2d Ala. right Code R e s t i t u t i o n to V i c t i m s Ala. 1149, of crime v i c t i m s to r e c e i v e r e s t i t u t i o n Code 1152 1975, 1975 ('the Act')." (Ala. Crim. provides as of Crimes A c t , App. Roberts 2002). v. Section § i s set 15-18-65 State, 15-18-65, follows: "The L e g i s l a t u r e hereby finds, declares and determines that i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o be fair and i m p a r t i a l i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e , t h a t a l l perpetrators of criminal activity or conduct be r e q u i r e d to f u l l y compensate a l l v i c t i m s of such c o n d u c t o r a c t i v i t y f o r any p e c u n i a r y l o s s , damage o r i n j u r y as a d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t r e s u l t t h e r e o f . The p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s a r t i c l e s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d so as t o a c c o m p l i s h t h i s p u r p o s e and to promote the same w h i c h shall be the p u b l i c p o l i c y of this state." 6 863 1090393 As the Court legislative plain of crime Criminal purpose language 1153 underlying App. 1992), App. the Butler result Act, i n Roberts: as to f u l l y evidenced by compensate damage o r i n j u r y ' of a c r i m i n a l "The act." the victims suffered 863 So. 2d v. State, 608 So. 2d 773 (Ala. Crim. G l a d d e n v. State, 644 So. 2d 1267 (Ala. Crim. 1993)). In quotes § and stated pecuniary loss, or i n d i r e c t (citing Appeals o f § 1 5 - 1 8 - 6 5 , was f o r 'any as a d i r e c t at of the present case, the t r i a l the f o l l o w i n g court's restitution from that p o r t i o n 1 5 - 1 8 - 6 7 , A l a . Code order of the Act c o d i f i e d at 1975: "When a d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y or c o n d u c t w h i c h has r e s u l t e d i n p e c u n i a r y damages o r l o s s t o a v i c t i m , t h e c o u r t s h a l l h o l d a hearing to determine the amount or type of restitution due the victim or v i c t i m s of such defendant's criminal acts. Such restitution h e a r i n g s s h a l l be h e l d as a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e a n d i n a d d i t i o n t o a n y o t h e r s e n t e n c e w h i c h i t may i m p o s e , the court shall order that the defendant make r e s t i t u t i o n or o t h e r w i s e compensate such v i c t i m f o r a n y p e c u n i a r y d a m a g e s . The d e f e n d a n t , t h e v i c t i m o r victims, or their representatives or the a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f a n y v i c t i m ' s e s t a t e as w e l l as t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y s h a l l h a v e t h e r i g h t t o be p r e s e n t a n d be h e a r d u p o n t h e i s s u e o f r e s t i t u t i o n a t a n y such h e a r i n g s . " Section 15-18-66(2), damages" Ala. Code as 7 1975, defines "pecuniary 1090393 " [ a ] l l s p e c i a l damages w h i c h a p e r s o n s h a l l r e c o v e r a g a i n s t the defendant i n a c i v i l a c t i o n a r i s i n g out of t h e f a c t s o r e v e n t s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s ; the term s h a l l i n c l u d e , but not be limited t o t h e money o r o t h e r e q u i v a l e n t of p r o p e r t y taken, broken, d e s t r o y e d , or o t h e r w i s e used or harmed and l o s s e s s u c h as t r a v e l , m e d i c a l , d e n t a l or burial expenses and wages i n c l u d i n g but not limited to wages lost as a result of court appearances." Section 15-18-66(4), Ala. Code 1975, defines " [ a ] n y p e r s o n whom t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s h a s or indirect criminal p e c u n i a r y damage activities. participant argues contends in affirming first criminal act that a result 'Victim' i n the defendant's Theodorou erred as that shall the trial court's the restitution Theodorou not of not t h a t m a t t e r , even c h a r g e d or i m p l i c a t e d . " p. 6.) his He receipt damage for contends of the which that the stolen the theft court restitution therefore include any Criminal was Appeals order. based trial court convicted or, (Theodorou's exceeded Theodorou i t s discretion order. 8 Theodorou contends a for brief, the p r o p e r t y - - a n d ordered He "upon p r o p e r t y - - p r o x i m a t e l y caused compensate Bussman C o n s t r u c t i o n . trial of direct defendant's restitution order was the a as activities." Court the f o r which suffered of criminal "victim" not the to that the in issuing the 1090393 In 2009), Reeves v. S t a t e , the Court 24 S o . 3 d 5 4 9 , 553 of Criminal Appeals (Ala. Crim. App. stated: " ' B e f o r e a d e f e n d a n t c a n be h e l d l i a b l e f o r d a m a g e s , i t m u s t be e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t h i s c r i m i n a l a c t was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by t h e v i c t i m . ' S t r o u g h v . S t a t e , 501 S o . 2 d 4 8 8 , 491 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1986). Therefore, under Alabama's restitution statute, Reeves could be ordered t o pay r e s t i t u t i o n o n l y i f one o f two conditions existed: (1) h i s v i c t i m s s u f f e r e d a n y d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t p e c u n i a r y l o s s e s as a r e s u l t o f t h e a c t i v i t y f o r w h i c h he h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o r , (2) he a d m i t t e d t o o t h e r c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f any i n j u r i e s to the victims. L a m a r v . S t a t e , 803 S o . 2 d 576 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001 ). The S t a t e h a s t h e burden of p r o v i n g that a defendant's c r i m i n a l a c t was t h e p r o x i m a t e cause of the victim's injury b e f o r e a d e f e n d a n t c a n be h e l d l i a b l e f o r damages. R i c h a r d s o n v . S t a t e , 603 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 2 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 19 9 2 ) . " Ordinarily, victim would activity suffer determines Strough v. S t a t e , the Court the defendant's damage whether as ability a result proximate 501 S o . 2 d 4 8 8 , 491 of Criminal Appeals stated to foresee that the of cause the criminal exists. ( A l a . C r i m . App. In 1986), the following regarding foreseeability: "As o u r Supreme C o u r t o b s e r v e d i n A l a b a m a Power C o m p a n y v . T a y l o r , 2 9 3 A l a . 4 8 4 , 30 6 S o . 2 d 2 3 6 (1975), foreseeability i s the cornerstone of proximate cause. T h i s d o e s n o t mean, h o w e v e r , t h a t the defendant must have actually foreseen the p a r t i c u l a r i n j u r y which r e s u l t e d from h i s a c t i o n . 9 1090393 R a t h e r , t h e i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by t h e v i c t i m must have been of such a n a t u r e t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n c o u l d have f o r e s e e n o r a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e i n j u r y might occur as a n a t u r a l consequence of the action. W i l l i a m s v . Woodman, 424 S o . 2 d 611 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ; P r e s c o t t v. M a r t i n , 331 S o . 2 d 240 ( A l a . 1 97 6 ) . Where an i n j u r y i s c a u s e d b y i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c t , the r u l e s o f p r o x i m a t e c a u s e a r e more liberally applied. P h i l l i p s v. S m a l l e y Maintenance S e r v i c e s , Inc., 435 S o . 2 d 705 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . " (Emphasis the added.) Thus, i n r e v i e w i n g t h e r e s t i t u t i o n p r e s e n t c a s e , we must d e t e r m i n e s t o l e n p r o p e r t y Theodorou his criminal Construction trial the of court trial conduct restitution. Crim. App. cause 1993) Bussman the p a r t i c u l a r ordered r e s t i t u t i o n . c o u r t has wide State, 639 except (quoting Crim. 355, (Ala. 356 i n cases Richardson App. 1992), judge. v. amount That of c l e a r State, 603 quoting i n turn ( A l a . Crim. App. 1983), 1984))). 10 Bussman f o r which we note the that S o . 2 d 5 5 5 , 556 ( A l a . a m a t t e r w h i c h must o f n e c e s s i t y be l e f t overturned the i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount ("'"The p a r t i c u l a r of the t r i a l damage and Additionally, discretion Howard v. discretion i n receiving s h o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y f o r e s e e n t h a t would to sustain whether order i n of r e s t i t u t i o n i s almost t o t a l l y discretion and So. Clare s h o u l d n o t be flagrant 2d to the abuse."'" 1132, 1134 ( A l a . v. S t a t e , 456 S o . 2 d affirmed, 456 So. 2d 357 1090393 As to the when the because, in in that attachment he said, Theodorou's attachment January in ordered f o r t h e hammer a t t a c h m e n t , B u s s m a n t e s t i f i e d restitution $20,616.36 an u p r i g h t attachment and Theodorou's properly he lying was not court him on when he he the i t s side According stored attachment testified that side to would have the bare when there was attachment consequently make i t unsafe hammer and cost-prohibitive. evidence damaged a f t e r was i f the the operate. attachment i t back indicating 11 evidence at weight would Bussman to i t on i t s back which that received the inspected In l i g h t of t h a t Theodorou sufficient up," in hammer the attachment " t e a r [ i n g ] i t a l l t h e way build[ing] that located position, to the attachment o f t h e damage c a u s e d b y s t o r i n g sufficient was the i t was t o Bussman, i n an u p r i g h t the involved steel s u g g e s t e d was and having determine the extent that However, Bussman t e s t i f i e d on i t was the equipment stored of the 300- to 400-pound s t e e l r o d i n s i d e warp unusable testified obtained that i t was i t s side while Theodorou testified residence. attachment to i t had been s t o r e d position. was trial returned possession. worked 2005, was the down Bussman testimony, the i t , and indicating hammer there that 1090393 Theodorou's criminal the attachment. hammer property is is illegally reasonably damage.'" 2007) conduct proximately Additionally, court's State Ct. App. of that v. has not that determination. that part of the r e s t i t u t i o n remaining and $6,616.58 the for loss--represents the theft Theodorou, Theodorou in he See property (Ms. may in restitution for order received that the the hammer and ordered Bussman the each 2004 but these of the p r o p e r t y 12 for Construction before, stolen property of f o r the $4,572.50 amounts to affirmed. court received trial Consequently, t o be trial 7, N.E.2d)). c o u r t had supra. i s due the suffer 2 0 0 6 - C A - 1 1 5 , Nov. published Howard, revenue, damage c a u s e d by t h e t h e f t ("'[O]nce that proceeds September argues 554 f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n the cost insurance lost at demonstrated in $12,801.58 restitution--$1,612.50 backhoe 3d the wide d i s c r e t i o n the t r i a l make The the (not $20,616.36 attachment exceeded So. Lacey, 2007) Theodorou award 24 removed f r o m t h e c u s t o d y o f i t s owner i t foreseeable (quoting (Ohio Reeves, c a u s e d t h e damage t o of the backhoe, replacement suffered after according i n January was as to 2005. proximately r a t h e r t h a n by h i s r e c e i p t 1090393 of the stolen The the State property. responds 4 to this position, however, by making f o l l o w i n g argument: "A person who knowingly purchases stolen p r o p e r t y i s a p a r t of the c h a i n of a c t i v i t i e s t h a t led to the theft of p r o p e r t y because, absent a w i l l i n g buyer of such s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , the t h e f t of the p r o p e r t y might not have o c c u r r e d . A person who r e c e i v e s the s t o l e n p r o p e r t y can f o r e s e e t h a t the p e r s o n f r o m whom t h e p r o p e r t y was s t o l e n w i l l i n c u r a f i n a n c i a l l o s s , i n c l u d i n g the n e c e s s i t y to r e p l a c e t h e e q u i p m e n t and l o s s o f t h e use o f t h e e q u i p m e n t . Consequently, i t i s proper to h o l d the buyer of the stolen property jointly or s e v e r a l l y responsible w i t h the t h i e f f o r the l o s s to the v i c t i m , even t h o u g h t h e l o s s may h a v e o c c u r r e d b e f o r e he r e c e i v e d the s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . " (Emphasis added.) In r e p l y , Theodorou states that he "agrees t h a t i t i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e f o r the t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y and t h e s u b s e q u e n t r e c e i p t o f t h e s t o l e n p r o p e r t y to j o i n t l y or s e v e r a l l y p r o x i m a t e l y cause i n j u r y to a v i c t i m of such c r i m i n a l conduct. Likewise, Theodorou agrees that there may be c o n c u r r e n t or m u l t i p l e proximate causes from which damages f l o w . However, T h e o d o r o u a r g u e s t h a t t h i s mere t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y a l o n e i s n o t enough t o a w a r d d a m a g e s . T h e r e s t i l l m u s t e x i s t some s o r t o f c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between the c r i m i n a l conduct and t h e a c t u a l d a m a g e s . ... I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , there i s no s u c h c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e a c t u a l d a m a g e s a n d Theodorou's r e c e i p t of the s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . " In Commonwealth v. Kelly, 836 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. Ct. The d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n s by Judge Wise and Judge Welch t o t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum e x p r e s s a s i m i l a r view. So. 3 d a t , . 4 13 1090393 2003), the Pennsylvania Superior Court theory of causation s i m i l a r this case. In K e l l y , contendere to specifically, A.2d at the defendant three counts of advanced by t h e S t a t e i n had e n t e r e d a p l e a of nolo receiving 932. The trial court o c c u r r e d when for ordered as a c o n d i t i o n t h a t a m o u n t , $ 1 , 9 3 8 . 4 1 was f o r r e p a i r s defendant stolen t e l e p h o n e s t h a t had been s t o l e n $2,269.80 i n r e s t i t u t i o n that property; the items were to a truck that was Kelly to of h i s probation. On into when restitution a l l he was from t h e t r u c k a n d t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t he was t h e o n e who b r o k e into the truck." Superior Court The Of appeal, the c o n v i c t e d o f was r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y o f i t e m s t a k e n inside pay t o t h e t r u c k f o r damage stolen. broken player from a t r u c k . " c l a i m [ e d ] t h a t i t was i m p r o p e r t o o r d e r damage "market" the defendant had r e c e i v e d a compact-disc and two c e l l u l a r 836 to that considered a court rejected 836 A . 2 d a t 9 3 2 . the defendant's The P e n n s y l v a n i a argument, however. reasoned: "While the r e p a i r of the truck i s not d i r e c t l y connected to the crime of r e c e i v i n g stolen property, it i s indirectly connected to the crime of [receiving stolen property]. Even i f [the d e f e n d a n t ] d i d n o t a c t u a l l y b r e a k i n t o t h e t r u c k , he p r o v i d e d a m a r k e t f o r t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s who d i d . 14 1090393 836 A.2d at reiterated 932. that In concluding rationale, i t s opinion, the court noting: " [ T ] h e v e r d i c t means [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] was c o n v i c t e d o f b u y i n g t h e g o o d s , a n d he e i t h e r k n e w t h e y w e r e stolen or reasonably should h a v e known t h e y w e r e stolen. We n o t e t h a t [ t h e t r i a l c o u r t ] r e a s o n e d that ' i f those people aren't out there buying s t o l e n property, people aren't breaking i n (Id.) In other words, [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] p r o v i d e d a market f o r t h a t p e r s o n who i s c r i m i n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the b r e a k - i n a n d damage t o t h e t r u c k . While t h i s would n o t b e e n o u g h t o be c o n s i d e r e d a ' d i r e c t ' r e s u l t o f t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y , we do a g r e e w i t h [ t h e t r i a l court] that this c a n be c o n s i d e r e d 'indirectly' connected to the c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . " 832 A.2d a t 934. I n K e l l y , i t was c r u c i a l to the truck probation If the rather the imposed than restitution defendant's required was stolen property been the a "direct causal the r e s t i t u t i o n as a c o n d i t i o n as a p a r t had sentence, that f o r damage of the defendant's of the defendant's imposed applicable connection" as a part statute between sentence. of would the have the receipt of a n d t h e damage t o t h e t r u c k . 5 836 A . 2 d a t S e e 18 P a . C o n s . S t a t . § 1 1 0 6 ( a ) ("Upon c o n v i c t i o n f o r any crime wherein property has been s t o l e n , c o n v e r t e d or otherwise unlawfully obtained, or i t s value s u b s t a n t i a l l y d e c r e a s e d as a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f t h e c r i m e , o r w h e r e i n t h e v i c t i m s u f f e r e d p e r s o n a l i n j u r y d i r e c t l y r e s u l t i n g from the c r i m e , t h e o f f e n d e r s h a l l b e s e n t e n c e d t o make r e s t i t u t i o n i n a d d i t i o n t o the punishment p r e s c r i b e d t h e r e f o r . " (emphasis added)). 5 15 1090393 933. However, condition of because the the restitution defendant's probation, c o n t r o l l e d ; under t h a t s t a t u t e "the damage and the require[d] 836 A.2d offense some c o n n e c t i o n at Like the Pennsylvania ordered restitution scheme "indirect" causation as a for activity damage. Specifically, suffered and a statute restitution criminal responsibility statute in Kelly condition of probation, incorporates criminal as different as r e q u i r e d nexus between relaxed, to a imposed the only ...." 6 932. restitution "victim" is was has "[a]ny a d i r e c t or a "relaxed" determining caused a applicable whether Alabama's standard a indirect whom victim particular the pecuniary court pecuniary defines determines damage as of defendant's § 1 5 - 1 8 - 6 6 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, person to has a r e s u l t of S e e 18 P a . C o n s . S t a t . § 1 1 0 6 ( b ) ("Whenever r e s t i t u t i o n has been o r d e r e d p u r s u a n t t o s u b s e c t i o n (a) a n d t h e offender h a s b e e n p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n o r p a r o l e , h i s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h such order may be made a c o n d i t i o n o f s u c h p r o b a t i o n or p a r o l e . " ) ; 42 P a . C o n s . S t a t . § 9 7 5 4 ( c ) ("The c o u r t may a s a c o n d i t i o n o f i t s o r d e r r e q u i r e t h e d e f e n d a n t : .... (8) To make r e s t i t u t i o n o f t h e f r u i t s o f h i s c r i m e o r t o make r e p a r a t i o n s , i n a n a m o u n t he c a n a f f o r d t o p a y , f o r t h e l o s s o r damage caused thereby."). See a l s o C o m m o n w e a l t h v . H a r r i o t t , 919 A . 2 d 2 3 4 , 239 ( P a . S u p e r . C t . 2 0 0 7 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g 42 P a . C o n s . S t a t . § 9 7 5 4 ( c ) ( 8 ) and n o t i n g t h a t i t " r e f e r e n c e [ s ] l o s s or damage ' c a u s e d ' b y t h e c r i m e b u t [ i t ] d o [ e s ] n o t d i c t a t e t h a t t h e r e s t i t u t i o n be a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f t h e o f f e n s e " ) . 6 16 1090393 the defendant's Thus, although equipment agree the may with conduct theft was also caused are directly cause specific Strough, 501 that Theodorou's damage; b y of a c t i v i t i e s property So. applied."). t o p a y as r e s t i t u t i o n he r e c e i v e d . 7 and ordered 2d the t h e damage of that i n d a m a g e s he was more l i b e r a l l y property of t h a t he knew was s t o l e n , T h e o d o r o u i n the chain added). caused an i n d i r e c t by i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c t , ordered (emphasis receipt argument the $12,801.58 See n o t have himself of Theodorou's the State's property placed criminal activities" at that caused ("Where the rules here, criminal purchasing intentionally included an injury of proximate Moreover, related the restitution. to the i s cause A l l t h e damages T h e o d o r o u were we the a d d i t i o n a l t o p a y as 491 stolen was specific t h e a u t h o r i t i e s above make C f . Chapman v . S t a t e , 733 So. 2 d 1055 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) , a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t , who was o r d e r e d t o p a y r e s t i t u t i o n f o r c e r t a i n s t o l e n i t e m s s h e h a d r e c e i v e d , was a l s o o r d e r e d t o p a y r e s t i t u t i o n f o r damage t o i t e m s t h a t w e r e s t o l e n a t t h e same t i m e b u t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t actually received. The s t a t u t e a t i s s u e i n Chapman, F l a . S t a t . § 7 7 5 . 0 8 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) , a u t h o r i z e d " r e s t i t u t i o n f o r damage o r loss caused ' d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y ' by t h e defendant." B o g e r t v . S t a t e , 834 S o . 2 d 3 9 2 , 394 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 2003) (quoting F l a . Stat. § 775.089(1)(a)). Under that statute, F l o r i d a courts "have ... h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t receiving stolen property and pawning i t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y ' r e l a t e d ' to the victim's loss to justify restitution." 7 17 1090393 it clear that victims the purpose of crime of the Act i s "to f u l l y f o r 'any p e c u n i a r y suffered as a d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t Roberts, 863 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 3 . loss, damage compensate or injury' r e s u l t of a c r i m i n a l Accordingly, we act." agree w i t h the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals' c o n c l u s i o n that Theodorou's r e c e i p t of the stolen property court caused t h e damage awarded Bussman C o n s t r u c t i o n Finally, restitution Theodorou order argues i s "punitive f o r which restitution. that the i n nature." the trial 8 amount The of Court the of C r i m i n a l Appeals concluded t h a t Theodorou's arguments i n t h i s Bogert, 834 S o . 2 d a t 3 9 4 . The C h a p m a n c o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e o r d e r o f r e s t i t u t i o n a s t o the s t o l e n items t h a t t h e defendant d i d not " a c t u a l l y o r constructively possess[]." 733 So. 2 d a t 1 0 5 6 . Chapman i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t e v e n t h e more r e l a x e d , " i n d i r e c t " s t a n d a r d o f causation i s not without l i m i t s . The p r e s e n t c a s e d o e s n o t i n v o l v e t h e c o n c e r n s a t i s s u e i n Chapman, h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e T h e o d o r o u was o r d e r e d t o pay r e s t i t u t i o n o n l y f o r damage r e l a t e d t o t h e s p e c i f i c s t o l e n p r o p e r t y t h a t he r e c e i v e d . Theodorou points out that the t r i a l court's order mistakenly asserts that he p l e a d e d guilty to "theft of property" rather than t o r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n property. The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h a t m i s t a k e was t h e r e s u l t of a c l e r i c a l e r r o r . Our c o n c l u s i o n t h a t T h e o d o r o u ' s r e c e i p t o f t h e s t o l e n p r o p e r t y c a u s e d t h e damage a t i s s u e p r e t e r m i t s any n e e d t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i n r e f e r e n c i n g a plea to "theft of property," erroneously attributed to T h e o d o r o u damage t h a t was c a u s e d s o l e l y b y t h e t h e f t o f t h e p r o p e r t y and not by h i s r e c e i p t of t h e s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . 8 18 1090393 regard do not comply because Theodorou the cases, that excessive. As the only failed statutes, contention the 28(a)(10), [and] o t h e r amount brief to propositions of law this that the Court sufficient ordered to the Court App. "citations are not of C r i m i n a l restitution of C r i m i n a l included Court do A l a . R. P., to a u t h o r i t i e s " to support h i s of to authority Theodorou's As Rule to include in his brief citations arguments. with in this citations support Appeals Appeals, section to his was of general specific noted: "Theodorou does not c i t e any a u t h o r i t y for his p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i s bound by t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y s t o l e n a n d may n o t consider other f a c t o r s . C o n t r a S t a t e v. E l l i s , 838 P . 2 d 1 3 1 0 , 1312 ( A r i z . C t . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t while fair market value i s generally the proper measure of a v i c t i m ' s l o s s , f a i r market v a l u e i s not always the appropriate standard, and the trial court's c o n s i d e r a t i o n of other f a c t o r s i s w i t h i n i t s broad d i s c r e t i o n ) . T h e o d o r o u a l s o has n o t c i t e d any a u t h o r i t y f o r h i s p r o p o s i t i o n that the c i r c u i t court may not order him to pay r e s t i t u t i o n above the actual monetary value of the s t o l e n equipment. C o n t r a E x p a r t e F l e t c h e r , 849 S o . 2 d 9 0 0 , 909 ( A l a . 2001) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t may, a s p a r t of i t s r e s t i t u t i o n order, r e q u i r e the defendant t o pay i n t e r e s t ) . Consequently, Theodorou has not complied with Rule 28(a)(10), [ A l a . R. A p p . P.,] a n d h i s arguments are not p r o p e r l y before t h i s c o u r t . " Theodorou Court does not a d d r e s s of C r i m i n a l Appeals, t h e a u t h o r i t i e s r e l i e d upon by t h e nor has 19 he demonstrated that the 1090393 Court of Criminal trial court's of the Court Appeals restitution of Criminal otherwise order. Appeals erred i n a f f i r m i n g the Consequently, i s d u e t o be t h e judgment affirmed. Conclusion The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Woodall, Cobb, and dissent Stuart, Bolin, C . J . , and Lyons and P a r k e r , and Murdock, J J . , concur. J J . , concur i n part i n part. Shaw, J . , r e c u s e s himself.* * J u s t i c e Shaw was a member of the Court A p p e a l s when t h i s c a s e was b e f o r e t h a t c o u r t . 20 of Criminal 1090393 LYONS, Justice The statutory basis restitution of provides, criminal activity compensate pecuniary result "[a]ny loss, of such damage or perpetrators be r e q u i r e d conduct or a c t i v i t y as a direct damage 1975, to f o r any or indirect of the Court added). "victim" added.) opinion i n a l l respects of Criminal propriety of allowing r e s t i t u t i o n the v i c t i m , Bussman C o n s t r u c t i o n Appeals' except i t s judgment as t o f o r damage s u s t a i n e d opinion for such connotation causation requirement upholds damage that so as that the t r i a l by ascribing permits to the court's to relaxation disregard loss be 21 by Company, a f t e r t h e t h e f t b u t Jerome Theodorou's r e c e i p t o f t h e s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . main as as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s (Emphasis i n t h e main defines fully d e t e r m i n e s has s u f f e r e d a d i r e c t the before "[A]ll requiring [shall] A l a . Code activities." affirmance order § 1 5 - 1 8 - 6 5 , A l a . Code 1975 ( e m p h a s i s pecuniary concur court's part, injury p e r s o n whom t h e c o u r t criminal and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) . f o rthe t r i a l or conduct 15-18-66(4), indirect I i n part i n pertinent a l l victims thereof." Section or (concurring the of award word restitution "indirect" a the requirement of completely caused of The by the the statutory defendant's 1090393 criminal to activity. confine analysis the of The flaw in that dichotomy recoverable between analysis direct damages, as lies and opposed in failing indirect to to an principles of causation. Black's Law Dictionary defines "consequential loss" as follows: "A l o s s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e r e s u l t s o f damage r a t h e r t h a n f r o m t h e damage i t s e l f . A consequential loss i s p r o x i m a t e when t h e n a t u r a l a n d p r o b a b l e e f f e c t o f the w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t , under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i s to set i n o p e r a t i o n the i n t e r v e n i n g cause from which t h e l o s s d i r e c t l y r e s u l t s . When t h e l o s s i s n o t the n a t u r a l and p r o b a b l e e f f e c t o f t h e w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t , the loss i s remote. A l s o termed i n d i r e c t loss; c o n s e q u e n t i a l i n j u r y . Cf. d i r e c t loss." Black's The Law Dictionary warranty. not 529, in e.g., 534-35 (Ala. unconscionable Applying the hammer 2002) solely foregoing attachment to 2 0 0 4)(emphasis indirect on for Terminix Int'l because or rule frequently breach Co., to of to 854 So. clause is preclude arbitration i t purports a loss added)). this backhoe 22 a added). c o n s e q u e n t i a l damages or (emphasis the damage i s liability ("Thus, t h e special profits.'" the ed. L e o n a r d v. 'indirect, anticipated and limitations See, remedy f o r of (8th c o n t r a s t between d i r e c t encountered 2d 964 case, would be the damage direct; to any 1090393 damages f o r l o s t p r o f i t s a f t e r t h e r e c e i p t by Theodorou of t h e stolen until had of property running the time Bussman b e e n made w h o l e w o u l d b e "a l o s s a r i s i n g t h e damage" In the statutory from the r e s u l t s o r an i n d i r e c t l o s s . Grace v. S t a t e , 2004), Construction Court basis 899 S o . 2 d 3 0 2 , 308 of Criminal Appeals, for restitution in (Ala. Crim. dealing criminal App. with cases, the aptly observed: " ' " ' [ I ] t i s well established that criminal statutes s h o u l d n o t be " e x t e n d e d b y c o n s t r u c t i o n . " ' Ex p a r t e Evers, 434 So. 2d 813, 817 ( A l a . 1 983). ' " [ C ] r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s must be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d , t o avoid ensnaring behavior that i s not clearly proscribed."' United States v. B r i d g e s , 493 F . 2 d 918, 922 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) . " C a r r o l l [ v . S t a t e ] , 599 So. 2 d [ 1 2 5 3 , ] 1264 [ ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ] . ' " (Quoting State v. B r o o k s , 701 S o . 2 d 5 6 , 58 (Ala. Crim. App. the foregoing well 1996).) I settled theory Kelly, believe t h e main principles. urged by the 836 A . 2 d 931 I opinion would State, violates reject recognized the expansive market i n Commonwealth v. (Pa. Super. C t . 2003), and embraced by t h e main o p i n i o n . I would adhere t o the view expressed i n B.M.J. v. So. 200 6 ) , State, 952 2d 1174, 1176 ( A l a . Crim. which the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals reversed 23 App. the t r i a l in court's 1090393 restitution order w h e r e t h e r e was receiving cart. The requiring payment for repairs no e v i d e n c e l i n k i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t to a go-cart charged s t o l e n p r o p e r t y t o t h e damaged c o n d i t i o n c o u r t i n B.M.J. of the stated: " [ I ] n B e s t v . S t a t e , 895 So. 2d 1 0 5 0 , 1054 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g Day v . S t a t e , 557 So. 2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1319 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n S t r o u g h v . S t a t e , 501 So. 2 d 4 8 8 , 4 91 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986), t h i s Court s t a t e d t h a t '"'[b]efore a d e f e n d a n t c a n be h e l d l i a b l e f o r d a m a g e s , i t m u s t be e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t h i s c r i m i n a l a c t was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d ' " ' by t h e v i c t i m . See B u t l e r v . S t a t e , 60 8 So. 2d 7 7 3 , 775 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992 ) ( q u o t i n g S t r o u g h , 501 So. 2 d a t 491, q u o t i n g i n t u r n C i t y o f M o b i l e v . H a v a r d , 289 A l a . 532, 538, 268 So. 2d 805, 810 (1972)) ('"'The p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f an i n j u r y i s t h e p r i m a r y m o v i n g cause w i t h o u t which i t would not have o c c u r r e d , but which, i n the n a t u r a l and probable sequence of events, produces the i n j u r y . ' " ' ) . T h e r e f o r e , under Alabama's r e s t i t u t i o n s t a t u t e , the defendant c o u l d be o r d e r e d t o p a y r e s t i t u t i o n t o t h e v i c t i m o f h i s c r i m e o n l y i f one o f two c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t e d : (1) h i s v i c t i m s u f f e r e d d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t p e c u n i a r y l o s s as a result of the c r i m i n a l activity of which the d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d , o r (2) he a d m i t t e d t o other c r i m i n a l conduct d u r i n g the proceedings that was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e v i c t i m ' s p e c u n i a r y l o s s or damages. "Here, t h e S t a t e and d e f e n s e c o u n s e l s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f p o l i c e r e p o r t s t e n d i n g t o show t h a t B . M . J . was f o u n d t o be i n ' p o s s e s s i o n ' o f t h e g o - c a r t , w h i c h was l a t e r d i s c o v e r e d t o be stolen. T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d e i t h e r a t B . M . J . ' s d e l i n q u e n c y h e a r i n g or at the r e s t i t u t i o n h e a r i n g , that his criminal a c t i v i t y , i . e . , receiving stolen p r o p e r t y , was the proximate cause o f t h e damage, 24 with go- 1090393 either directly or indirectly, to the stolen vehicle. Additionally, B.M.J. n e v e r admitted to h a v i n g c a u s e d a n y damage t o t h e v e h i c l e . " 952 So. 2d a t 1175-76 I therefore main opinion Bussman criminal (emphasis respectfully permitting Construction added). dissent from that r e s t i t u t i o n f o r damage after the theft but before activity. Cobb, C . J . , and Murdock, J . , c o n c u r . 25 aspect of the sustained by Theodorou's

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.