Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2007 WY 194

By Meg

Summary of Decision issued December 11, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Crapo v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 194

Docket Number: 06-258

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Ryan R. Roden, Deputy Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Timothy Justin Forwood, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the district court had statutory authority to order Mr. Crapo to pay restitution to burglary victims when he did not plead guilty to the burglaries or conspiracy to commit the burglaries and did not as part of his plea agreement, agree to pay restitution to the burglary victims.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant pled guilty to the crime of receiving, concealing, or disposing of stolen property. As part of his sentence, the district court ordered him to pay restitution.
Standard of Review: The standard of review the Court employs in evaluating a restitution order depends on whether the appellant is challenging the factual basis for the restitution order or is challenging the trial court?s authority to make the restitution award. Appellant contended his challenge was to the district court?s authority to order the contested restitution award. The proper standard of review is de novo.
The Court has held that restitution is not an inherent power of the district court. Rather, it is a power that exists solely by statute. The district court has authority to order restitution only for those losses resulting from the defendant?s criminal activity. The defendant must plead guilty to the crime, be convicted of the crime or admit to the crime.
Appellant?s situation is similar to that presented in Penner. It is undisputed that Appellant was never charged with committing any of the burglaries. The record does not contain any evidence that Appellant admitted to committing the crimes, nor does it contain any evidence of an agreement to pay restitution resulting from those crimes. Accordingly, the district court?s authority to order restitution was limited to pecuniary damages incurred by victims arising from that criminal activity. The State appeared to rely upon inferences to be drawn from Appellant?s guilty plea. The Court stated there was no support in the record for the State?s position. Given the lack of support in the record for a restitution order, the Court was unable to determine any proper restitution amount.
The Court noted that because of double jeopardy implications, restitution orders overturned for failure of proof will not be remanded for the purpose of relitigating the restitution issue.

Holding: Because the trial court improperly ordered restitution for losses not attributable to Appellant?s criminal activity and because the record does not provide any evidence to support a proper calculation of pecuniary damages that are properly attributable to Appellant?s criminal activity, the Court vacated the entire restitution portion of the judgment and sentence.

Reversed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment and sentence.

J. Burke delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2w9tzj .

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on December 21, 2007 (boomark / email).