IN RE ALEXUS I.

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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) IN RE ALEXUS I. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 3/26/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-JV 12-0207 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28 ARCAP) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. S8015JV201200063 The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender By Diane S. McCoy, Deputy Appellate Defender Attorneys for Appellant Kingman Matthew J. Smith, Mohave County Attorney By Deborah L. Herbert, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Kingman D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 Alexus I. restitution order. ( Juvenile ) appeals the Finding no error, we affirm. juvenile court s FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Juvenile pled delinquent to two counts of shoplifting and agreed to pay restitution for all economic loss. One of the victim stores - K-Mart -- reported that although Juvenile had shoplifted $127.89 in apparel, it was only seeking $81.96 in restitution for items that could not be returned to its sales inventory. ¶3 After ordered Juvenile Juvenile timely a contested to pay restitution $81.96 appealed. We in have hearing, the restitution to jurisdiction court K-Mart. pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-235(A). DISCUSSION ¶4 Juvenile claims speculative. review restitution amount was We disagree. ¶5 the We discretion. a restitution order for an abuse of In re Andrew C., 215 Ariz. 366, 367, ¶ 6, 160 P.3d 687, 688 (App. 2007) (citations omitted). We will uphold a restitution order if it bears a reasonable relationship to the victim s loss. In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 239, ¶ 10, 119 P.3d 1039, 1042 (App. 2005). The State must prove a restitution claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 204 Ariz. (citations establish 466, 470, omitted). that the ¶ 15, [A] victim s 65 P.3d victim loss 2 In re Stephanie B., 114, must 118 present relates (App. 2003) evidence directly to to the juvenile's offense, and to provide a basis for setting an amount that is not speculative. In re Alton D., 196 Ariz. 195, 197, ¶ 9, 994 P.2d 402, 404 (2000) (internal citation omitted). ensure that the victim is made whole, the court has To broad discretion in setting the restitution amount based on the facts of the case, but it cannot order restitution that would make the victim more than whole. William L., 211 Ariz. at 239, ¶ 12, 119 P.3d at 1042. ¶6 K-Mart s loss prevention manager testified that shoplifted apparel totaling $45.93 was returned to the sales inventory, leaving $81.96 in nonsalable merchandise. Juvenile did not dispute the dollar value placed on those items or the allegation she packaging. had damaged them by removing tags and/or The manager testified it was company policy to return damaged items to the manufacturer at the store s expense and that [n]inety percent of the time they just send us a new one. provide However, she never stated that the manufacturer would the replacement instead testified, items [i]t to still K-Mart costs the free store of charge for that and new item. ¶7 We disagree with Juvenile s assertion that the restitution order is inconsistent with State v. Freeman, 174 Ariz. 303, 848 P.2d 882 (App. 1993), and State v. Ferguson, 165 Ariz. 275, 798 P.2d 413 (App. 1990). 3 In both cases, we held that the trial court must reduce the restitution awards by the value of items recovered and returned to the victims. Freeman, 174 Ariz. at 306-07, 848 P.2d at 885-86 (credit for value of merchandise that was available to victim but unclaimed); Ferguson, 165 Ariz. at 277-78, 798 P.2d at 415-16 (credit for stolen property police returned to victims). Juvenile returned stole to $127.89 the sales in apparel, inventory the was value Here, although of deducted, the items and the restitution award included only those items that Juvenile had damaged. The restitution order was designed to make the victim whole and was not an abuse of the juvenile court s discretion. CONCLUSION ¶8 We affirm the juvenile court s restitution order. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge /s/ PHILIP HALL, Judge 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.