Kyra Jacobs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 18 2018, 6:26 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew M. Kubacki Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kyra Jacobs, September 18, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-554
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David Hooper,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1708-CM-30979
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Kyra Jacobs appeals the trial court’s restitution order following her conviction
for class A misdemeanor criminal mischief. Jacobs asserts that insufficient
evidence supports the restitution order and that the trial court abused its
discretion in failing to inquire about her ability to pay. Finding the evidence
sufficient and no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Pro Logistics is a staffing agency that provides temporary staffing for
warehouses. On August 9, 2017, Jacobs appeared at the Pro Logistics office
and was upset “because she was turned away from a job assignment due to it
being overfilled.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. She was “irritated that she had wasted her
time and was asking for reimbursement via gift card or some other kind of
compensation for her time.” Id. After operations manager Christina Powell
apologized to Jacobs and explained to her that the company did not reimburse
for that kind of thing, Jacobs demanded to speak to a supervisor. Jacobs
became more agitated, and Powell advised Jacobs that she needed to leave or
the police would be called. Jacobs then stood up and pushed a computer
“screen forward” onto the floor. Id. at 20. She also smashed a picture frame
and went behind the reception desk and threw a laser printer “to the ground.”
Id. at 21. Both the computer and the printer were “[ef]fectively destroyed.” Id.
at 10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5
[3] The State charged Jacobs with class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.
Following a bench trial, the court found her guilty as charged and sentenced her
to one year of nonreporting probation. The trial court found Jacobs indigent as
to court costs and instructed her that she could request to be found indigent as
to the nominal fees associated with nonreporting probation in the event she was
unable to pay those fees. The court ordered restitution in the amount of $1694
in favor of Pro Logistics, but specifically advised the parties that the restitution
was “not a condition of Probation.” Id. at 41. Jacobs now appeals the
restitution order.
Discussion and Decision
Section 1 – The State presented sufficient evidence to support
the restitution order.
[4] Jacobs first contends that the restitution order is not supported by sufficient
evidence. In sentencing a criminal defendant, a trial court may order the
defendant to “[m]ake restitution ... to the victim of the crime for damage ... that
was sustained by the victim.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2.3(a)(6). “An order of
restitution is as much a part of a criminal sentence as a fine or other penalty.”
Bell v. State, 59 N.E.3d 959, 962 (Ind. 2016) (quotation marks and brackets
omitted). The imposition of restitution falls “within the trial court’s discretion,
and we will reverse only on a showing of abuse of discretion.” Garcia v. State, 47
N.E.3d 1249, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied (2016). An abuse of
discretion occurs when the court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances before it. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5
[5] “A restitution order must be supported by sufficient evidence of actual loss
sustained by the victim of a crime.” Id. “Evidence supporting a restitution order
is sufficient if it affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss and does not
subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.” Id. We will affirm
the trial court’s decision regarding the amount of restitution to be paid if there is
any evidence supporting the decision. Smith v. State, 990 N.E.2d 517, 520 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[6] The trial court ordered Jacobs to pay Pro Logistics $1694 in restitution. Jacobs
argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support this estimation
of the actual loss sustained. On the issue of restitution, Powell testified that
Jacobs destroyed a computer and a printer. She stated that the estimated
damage was $995 for the computer and $699 for the printer. She testified that
the damage estimates were based on information she received from the
company’s lead IT employee who was familiar with the cost of replacement,
setup, and installation of those pieces of equipment. This evidence is sufficient,
as it afforded the trier of fact a reasonable basis for estimating the actual loss
suffered by Pro Logistics. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision
regarding the amount of restitution to be paid.
Section 2 – The trial court was not required to inquire into
Jacobs’s ability to pay.
[7] Jacobs next asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in entering a
restitution order without first inquiring into her ability to pay. It is well settled
that when restitution is ordered as a condition of probation or suspended
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5
sentence, the court is required to inquire into the defendant’s ability to pay.
Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770, 772 (Ind. 2008). This rule is intended to
prevent an indigent defendant from being imprisoned because of a probation
violation based on her failure to pay restitution. Bell v. State, 59 N.E.3d 959,
963 (Ind. 2016). However, when restitution is ordered as part of an executed
sentence, no inquiry into the ability to pay is required because restitution is
merely a money judgment, and a defendant cannot be imprisoned for
nonpayment. Id.
[8] The trial court here simply entered a money judgment against Jacobs. Indeed,
the court declined to make the restitution order a condition of probation and
specifically acknowledged, “We’ve not inquired [in]to her ability to pay. So I
can’t make it a condition of Probation.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 40. Jacobs concedes this
point but nevertheless argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing
to inquire into her ability to pay. Jacobs directs us to no legal authority, and we
are unaware of any, which imposes such a requirement under the
circumstances. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
[9] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-554 | September 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5