Carpenter (Robert) v. State ( 2013 )

 alleged that the chain and pendant were among the items stolen, he did
not clarify at the plea canvass or in the written plea agreement that he
was not pleading guilty to taking the chain and pendant, and he agreed to
make full restitution as ordered by the court, we conclude the district
court did not err by ordering Carpenter to pay restitution for the chain
and pendant.
Carpenter also claims that the restitution amount of $8,500 is
not supported by sufficient evidence. Carpenter asserts that the victim's
testimony, alone, was insufficient to establish the value of the chain and
pendant because the victim's opinion regarding value was based on his
Internet search for the price of gold.
Restitution is a sentencing determination that this court will
generally not disturb unless it rests upon impalpable or highly suspect
evidence. Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 12-13, 974 P.2d 133, 135 (1999).
A district court must rely on reliable and accurate information in
calculating a restitution award. Id. at 13, 974 P.2d 135. "An owner of
property may testify to its value, at least so long as the owner has
personal knowledge, or the ability to provide expert proof, of value."
Stephans v. State, 127 Nev. „ 262 P.3d 727, 731 (2011) (internal
citation omitted).
At the restitution hearing, the victim requested restitution in
the amount of $8,500 and testified that the missing chain was 22 carat
gold, weighed 65 grams, and was valued at $6,500 and the missing
pendant was 24 carat gold and weighed 35 grams. The victim testified
that neither item had been appraised and he established the value of the
chain and pendant based on the weight of each item and by looking up the
price of gold on the Internet. He further testified that he was familiar
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
with the price of gold and the value of his jewelry because in his culture
people keep jewelry to give to a daughter and daughter-in-law as a dowry.
Although Carpenter argued that the victim's valuation of his jewelry was
not reliable because of inconsistencies in the valuations assigned by the
victim, the district court found that the victim's testimony regarding the
value of his jewelry was credible and reliable.
Although the victim relied on the Internet to assist him in
valuing his missing jewelry, given the victim's knowledge of the jewelry,
including its approximate weight, the record does not support Carpenter's
assertion that the victim relied solely on an outside source to establish the
value of his jewelry. Further, contrary to Carpenter's assertion on appeal,
the Division of Parole and Probation's estimate of what they would be
seeking as restitution and the amount paid to the victim from his
insurance company did not establish the value of the missing jewelry.
Given the district court's credibility determination, we conclude that the
district court relied on reasonably reliable and accurate evidence when
setting restitution and we affirm the award of restitution. Therefore, we
ORDER the amended /judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
,J.
Douglas Saitta
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
3