In re Cody E.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN RE CODY E. DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/31/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-JV 10-0078 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV 542924 The Honorable Bernard C. Owens, Commissioner AFFIRMED Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Attorney by Linda Van Brakel, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Maricopa County Juvenile Public Defender by Suzanne Sanchez, Deputy Juvenile Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Mesa I R V I N E, Presiding Judge ¶1 Cody E. appeals from the juvenile court s order that he pay SK restitution of $211.85. ¶2 Cody was originally charged with two counts of non- residential burglary. He and a co-defendant were accused of entering a fenced yard and non-residential structure and taking property that did not belong to them. After doing so they allegedly rode away on a four-wheel ATV, which ultimately turned out to be stolen. The police report listed theft-means of transportation, but the actual charging petition only included the burglary charges. ¶3 Pursuant to a plea agreement, one of the charges was reduced and the other dismissed. One term of the plea indicated that Cody burglary. was pleading Another delinquent stated: The to solicitation juvenile agrees to commit to pay restitution to all victims, for all economic loss, as described in Mesa police departmental report number 2009-2140455, in an amount not to exceed $30,000.00. Still another term stated: Maricopa County Attorney s Office agrees not to file Theft of means of transportation charges as related to the quad owned by [SK] described in Mesa police departmental report number 2009 214055, but can make no such agreement as to any other agency. There are no additional agreements. ¶4 At the restitution hearing, Cody objected to paying restitution to SK. The juvenile court s minute entry summarizes Cody s argument and the court s analysis, so we quote it at length. 2 The juvenile, Cody [], argues that [SK s] losses do not flow from any of his unlawful conduct; there is no nexus between his conduct and damage to the Honda ATV. Although he acknowledges there is evidence that he was a passenger on the Honda ATV, he maintains there is no evidence that he was responsible for any damage to the vehicle; any damage, he claims, was caused by [codefendant] prior to the time he even knew the Honda ATV was stolen. Cody is correct; there is no evidence he caused any of the damage to the Honda ATV. Cody entered a written plea agreement, and in that agreement he agreed to pay restitution to all victims, for all economic loss, as described in Mesa police departmental report number 2009-2140455, in an amount not to exceed $30,000.00. In addition, the language of the plea agreement states that the Maricopa County attorney would not file theft of means of transportation charges against Cody as related to the quad owned by [SK] described in Mesa police departmental report number 2009 214055 ¦ THE COURT FINDS that this written plea agreement controls the issue of Cody s responsibility for [SK s] losses. [SK] was a victim described in the subject police report, and his economic loss was also described. Thus, by express, clear language in the written plea agreement, Cody agreed to pay restitution to [SK]; he bargained away his argument that a nexus did not exist between his conduct and the damage to the Honda ATV. 3 ¶5 Cody argues that the juvenile court misread the plea agreement, and he only agreed to pay restitution to victims of the acts he was charged with, in this case the burglaries. He does not dispute the restitution ordered to that victim, but argues he was never charged with a delinquent act against SK. He further argues that the reference in the plea agreement to the police report was merely intended to include the victim of the two charged offenses and his insurer. We disagree, and conclude that the juvenile court correctly interpreted the plea agreement. ¶6 The police report clearly included SK as a victim and included theft-means of transportation as a potential charge. The plea agreement itself plainly addressed the potential theft of the ATV through its provision that the county attorney would not file theft insignificant charges agreement against given the Cody. This statements was in not the an police report that Cody s co-defendant told police that he obtained the ATV from Cody. ¶7 Restitution is proper if evidence reasonably leads to the inference that juvenile s criminal conduct was related to victim s damage. In re Andrew A., 203 Ariz. 585, 586, ¶ 7, 58 P.3d 527, 528 (App. 2002) (quoting Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-132905, 1996)). 186 Ariz. 607, 609, 925 P.2d 748, 750 There is no dispute that Cody used the ATV. 4 (App. In his plea agreement, he expressly agreed to pay restitution to the victims referred to in the police report. was SK. One of those victims Under these circumstances, we find no error in the juvenile court s determination that SK was due restitution. ¶8 Therefore, we affirm. _____/s/__________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Judge _ /s/___________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 5
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.
