State of Minnesota v. Darnell Steven Cox ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                           This opinion will be unpublished and
    may not be cited except as provided by
    Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    IN COURT OF APPEALS
    A14-0857
    State of Minnesota,
    Respondent,
    vs.
    Darnell Steven Cox,
    Appellant.
    Filed December 29, 2014
    Affirmed as modified
    Ross, Judge
    Ramsey County District Court
    File No. 62-CR-13-7801
    Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
    John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Laura S. Rosenthal, Assistant County Attorney,
    St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
    Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chelsie Willett, Assistant Public
    Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
    appellant)
    Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Hooten,
    Judge.
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    ROSS, Judge
    Darnell Cox drove a stolen car and pleaded guilty to motor vehicle theft. The
    district court ordered him to pay the victim $744.60 in restitution. Cox appeals the district
    court’s restitution order, arguing that his conduct leading to his conviction did not cause
    the victim’s losses and that the district court failed to consider his inability to pay.
    Because $145 of the victim’s losses did not directly result from Cox’s conduct, we
    modify the restitution requirement and affirm.
    FACTS
    The state charged Darnell Cox in October 2013 with motor vehicle theft under
    Minnesota Statutes section 609.52, subdivision 2(17) (2012). Cox agreed to plead guilty
    in return for the state’s dropping an unrelated burglary charge and agreeing that Cox
    would receive the lowest possible guidelines sentence. Cox admitted that he drove the
    victim’s car without permission during one week in January 2012. He did not admit that
    he took the car from the victim’s garage, but he agreed that his actions constituted motor
    vehicle theft. The district court accepted Cox’s plea.
    Cox returned to court to be sentenced a month later. The probation office provided
    a presentence investigation report at the sentencing hearing. The state agreed with the
    report and requested that restitution be left open for 60 days so that the victim could
    submit an affidavit detailing her losses. The district court sentenced Cox consistent with
    the plea agreement but left restitution open.
    2
    The probation office submitted a restitution request and the affidavit of the car’s
    owner, Alyssa Purdy. Purdy’s affidavit asserted that the car theft cost her $1,146.82. This
    amount consisted of costs that were both directly and indirectly related to the car theft:
    $375.42 to replace stolen skis; $145 for a locksmith to change her household locks
    because her house key was taken from her garage during the theft; $500 to reimburse her
    for the insurance deductible to repair damage to her car; and $118 in interim
    transportation costs. The probation office corrected a mathematical error in Purdy’s
    affidavit, resulting in a total claim of $1,138.42, which the district court initially ordered
    Cox to pay.
    Cox challenged the restitution order and the district court conducted a hearing.
    Purdy was the only testifying witness. She said that she entered her garage in January
    2012 and saw that her car had been taken. She noticed that her house key, which she kept
    on a nail in the garage, was also missing. Fearing that someone may use the key to enter
    her home, she had her locks changed. She also noticed that two pairs of skis were missing
    from the garage, so she purchased a new pair to replace them. Police later recovered her
    stolen skis. Purdy’s stolen car was located, and she testified that it had “some superficial
    damage.” Her insurer covered the repair cost, but only after she paid a $500 deductible.
    Purdy had to use cab service after the theft, and she paid $50 to rent a car while waiting
    for hers to be repaired.
    Cox’s attorney argued that the state had not laid a factual basis for any direct loss
    to Purdy as a result of Cox’s merely driving the car without permission. She pointed out
    that Cox had never admitted to taking the car from the garage or to damaging it. She also
    3
    maintained that the state had not established that Cox could afford to pay restitution and
    asserted that he was incarcerated.
    The district court ordered restitution in the amount of Purdy’s affidavit, excluding
    only the cost of the ski purchase. The restitution order totaled $744.60 ($500 for the
    insurance deductible, $145 for the locksmith, $49.60 for cab fare, and $50 for car rental).
    The district court reasoned that there were “certain consequences that happen when
    you’re doing things without somebody’s permission, including the fact that things are
    taken and that’s going to be all part of the same crime.” Rejecting Cox’s argument that he
    could not afford to pay, the district court stated, “[Y]ou can have this deducted from any
    prison earnings, but I am ordering restitution.” Cox appeals.
    DECISION
    Cox challenges the amount of restitution ordered by the district court. District
    courts have broad discretion in awarding restitution. State v. Tenerelli, 
    598 N.W.2d 668
    ,
    671 (Minn. 1999). But whether an item meets the restitution statute’s requirements is a
    legal question that we review de novo. State v. Ramsay, 
    789 N.W.2d 513
    , 517 (Minn.
    App. 2010). Cox argues that the ordered amount covers losses he did not cause and
    cannot afford to pay. He is partly correct.
    Cox persuasively argues that the record contains an insufficient factual basis to
    show that all of the claimed losses result from his criminal conduct. A district court may
    order a criminal to pay his victim restitution. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04 (2012). A loss
    entitling a victim to restitution must be “directly caused by the conduct for which the
    defendant was convicted.” State v. Latimer, 
    604 N.W.2d 103
    , 105 (Minn. App. 1999)
    4
    (quotation omitted). A restitution award must be supported by facts on the record. State v.
    Johnson, 
    851 N.W.2d 60
    , 65 (Minn. 2014). The state bears the burden of proving by a
    preponderance of the evidence the amount of the victim’s loss resulting from the offense
    and the appropriateness of the restitution award. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a)
    (2012); 
    Johnson, 851 N.W.2d at 65
    .
    When Cox pleaded guilty to the motor vehicle theft, he admitted to driving
    Purdy’s car without permission between January 11 and 18. The car left Purdy’s garage
    on January 11 undamaged and returned to her on January 18 damaged, and this cost
    Purdy money. The goal in ordering restitution is to restore the victim to the financial
    position she had before the crime. State v. Palubicki, 
    727 N.W.2d 662
    , 666 (Minn. 2007).
    The district court must consider “the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as
    a result of the offense.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a) (2012). The car thief’s (or car
    thieves’) operation and treatment of the car resulted in Purdy’s need to find alternative
    transportation and to fix the car. The state provided evidence that Cox paid a $500
    deductible to cover repairs and $99.60 for taxi and car-rental costs. The state therefore
    met its burden to prove that Cox’s car-theft crime directly caused these losses.
    But the locksmith cost resulted from the garage burglary precipitating the car theft,
    and Cox specifically denied ever entering Purdy’s garage to take the car. The state
    established that Purdy had kept the missing key on a nail in her garage and that she
    noticed it was missing when she saw that her car had been taken. This is sufficient
    circumstantial evidence to prove that whoever entered the garage to steal the car also took
    the key. But the garage entry was unnecessary to Cox’s guilty plea because motor vehicle
    5
    theft does not include an entry element and he denied the entry. The factual record
    therefore does not sufficiently attribute the key-theft cost to Cox’s criminal behavior. The
    district court should not have ordered Cox to pay $145 for the locksmith charge.
    Cox does not convince us that the district court abused its discretion by failing to
    consider his purported inability to pay. In addition to requiring the district court to
    consider the amount of a victim’s economic loss, the restitution statute requires the court
    to consider “the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant.” Minn. Stat.
    § 611A.045, subd. 1(a). But it does not require that a court make specific findings on the
    issue. State v. Nelson, 
    796 N.W.2d 343
    , 347 (Minn. App. 2011). We are satisfied that the
    district court sufficiently considered Cox’s ability to pay. The district court reviewed the
    presentence investigation report, which discussed Cox’s circumstances. The district court
    heard Cox’s inability-to-pay argument specifically presented by Cox’s counsel. And the
    district court expressly addressed the issue in its restitution order. The district court’s
    generalized observation about the capacity of Cox’s prison income to cover the order was
    sufficient analysis in light of the objectively small restitution amount.
    Because the record supports the district court’s restitution order in every regard
    except that it fails to include any evidence that Cox entered the garage and took Purdy’s
    key, we modify the order by eliminating the resulting $145 locksmith charge. We modify
    the restitution requirement to $599.60 and affirm the order.
    Affirmed as modified.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A14-857

Filed Date: 12/29/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021