IN RE ANTHONY A.
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. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/11/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN RE ANTHONY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-JV 12-0170 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV 12-0170 The Honorable Kirby Kongable, Commissioner AFFIRMED Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Public Advocate by Devra N. Ellexson, Deputy Public Advocate Attorneys for Appellee Mesa William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By E. Catherine Leisch, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H A L L, Judge ¶1 Anthony restitution order. A. (the juvenile) appeals from the For the following reasons, we affirm. court s FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The facts relevant to the issue raised on appeal are not disputed. 2012, the Pursuant to a plea agreement filed April 24, court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent facilitation to commit burglary in the second degree. to A term of the plea agreement also provides that the juvenile agrees to pay restitution to all victims, for all economic loss arising out of his offense in an amount not to exceed $60,000. ¶3 On June 29, 2012, the court conducted a restitution hearing. At the outset, the juvenile stipulated to restitution as to three of the four victims. remaining victim, R.P., to testify. The State then called the R.P. testified that his 2004 Chevy Silverado was stolen and vandalized, and the high-end stereo and expensive wheels with which he had upgraded the truck were removed. R.P. was informed that the truck was a total loss, opted but he to have it repaired. R.P. presented receipts for the repairs totaling $10,161.16, but testified that the actual cost of the repairs was more, but those were the only receipts that I ha[ve]. ¶4 During cross-examination by counsel for the juvenile, R.P. testified he did not know the Kelly Blue Book value of the truck. At the close of evidence, the court asked counsel to supply the high and low Blue Book value for a 2004 Silverado. 2 ¶5 The superior court subsequently entered a restitution order in the amount of $11,965.00, reflecting the blue book fair condition value of the vehicle. have jurisdiction Arizona pursuant Constitution, sections to and 12-120.21(A)(1) This appeal followed. Article Arizona 6, Section Revised (2003), 9 Statutes 13-4031, and of We the (A.R.S.) -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶6 As his sole issue on appeal, the juvenile contends that the superior court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of $11,965.00, rather than in the amount of the documented repairs, $10,161.16. ¶7 after If a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, the court, considering physical juvenile, and the mental shall nature of condition order the the and juvenile offense and the age, earning capacity of to full partial make or the restitution to the victim of the offense for which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent. A.R.S. § 8-344(A) (Supp. 2012). We review a juvenile court s restitution determination for an abuse of discretion. restitution if victim s loss. it On appeal, we will uphold the amount of bears a reasonable relationship to the In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 239, ¶ 10, 119 P.3d 1039, 1042 (App. 2005) (citation omitted). 3 ¶8 [W]e view the evidence bearing on a restitution claim in the light most favorable to sustaining the court s order. State v. Lewis, 222 Ariz. 321, 324, ¶ 5, 214 P.3d 409, 412 (App. 2009). The burden of proof applicable to restitution is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Stephanie B., 204 Ariz. 466, 470, ¶ 15, 65 P.3d 114, 118 (App. 2003). To ensure that the victim is made whole, the court has broad discretion in setting the restitution amount based on the facts of the case. In re William L., 211 Ariz. at 239, ¶ 12, 119 P.3d at 1042. Although generally the court uses the fair market value of the property at the time of the loss to measure restitution, when fair market value will not make the victim whole, the court has discretion to use other measures. Id. at 240, ¶ 15, 119 P.3d at 1043. ¶9 Here, the victim testified that he was informed his vehicle was juvenile. a total loss after it was vandalized the Nonetheless, the victim opted to repair the truck and was able to restore it to an operable condition. submitted by repair invoices totaling $10,161.16, The victim but testified that the actual cost of the repairs was more, but those were the only confessed receipts error, that we I ha[ve]. conclude that Although sufficient the State has evidence was presented to support the amount of restitution ordered by the superior court. See State v. Sanchez, 174 Ariz. 44, 45, 846 4 P.2d 857, 858 (App. 1993) (appellate court not required accept State s confession of error). CONCLUSION ¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. _/s/______________________________ PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: _/s/___________________________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Judge _/s/___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 5 to
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.
