Lopez (Bernabe) v. State ( 2013 )

 which defense counsel stated she viewed. Lopez did not object to the basis
of the award and, under these circumstances, we conclude he fails to
demonstrate plain error. See Mendoza-Lobos v. State, 125 Nev. 634, 644,
218 P.3d 501, 507 (2009).
Second, Lopez contends that the amount of restitution
awarded was based on mere speculation. We agree. Lopez objected to the
amount of restitution during the sentencing hearing and argued that there
were no receipts or estimates to substantiate the $3500 award. The victim
testified that that amount was "just a rough estimate" and he "assume [d]
it would be more." When asked about the cost to repair broken glass, the
victim "guess[ed]" the amount was "probably" $1800. The record does not
indicate that any documentation of any sort was provided in support of the
requested restitution amount. Under these circumstances, we conclude
the victim's testimony did not provide a sufficient basis to calculate a
restitution award. Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused
its discretion in setting the restitution amount and we vacate the
restitution award and remand this matter to the district court with
instructions to conduct a restitution hearing. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED IN PART
AND VACATED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court
for proceedings consistent with this order.
'J.
Hardesty
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A