State v. Cruse ( 2020 )

807
Submitted March 31; supplemental judgment reversed and remanded, other-
wise affirmed April 29, 2020
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JEREMIAH BEAU CRUSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
17CR65012; A168900
466 P3d 715
Kathryn L. Villa-Smith, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
James, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Supplemental judgment reversed and remanded; other-
wise affirmed.
808 State v. Cruse
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal
mischief based on his damaging the property of a school.
In a supplemental judgment, the court ordered defendant to
pay $1,178 in restitution for the property damage. Defendant
challenges only the award of restitution in the supplemen-
tal judgment in four assignments of error.1 We agree with
defendant on his fourth assignment of error that the state’s
restitution evidence was legally insufficient to establish that
the amount sought was “reasonable,” as required by ORS
137.106 and ORS 31.710(2)(a). We do not reach defendant’s
remaining assignments of error.
The state presented evidence in support of restitu-
tion through the testimony of a risk specialist who works in
the risk management department for the school district. He
testified that the school’s facility manager submitted a work
order to replace three damaged windows. The risk manage-
ment department approved the work to be completed by a
glass company and paid that company’s bill, which totaled
$1,178.
In State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 301 Or App 42,
44-46, 455 P3d 997 (2019), we concluded that evidence of
a repair-shop bill for automobile repair costs and evidence
that the victim’s insurer had paid that bill was not suffi-
cient to establish that the amount paid was reasonable for
purposes of restitution. Similarly, here, the state did not
present evidence of the reasonableness of the cost to replace
the damaged windows, having only presented testimony
that the school district paid the amount that the glass com-
pany billed for the work. That evidence is legally insufficient
under Aguirre-Rodriguez.
Supplemental judgment reversed and remanded;
otherwise affirmed.
1
Defendant also appeals from the general judgment of conviction. However,
he has not assigned any error that challenges that judgment on appeal. We thus
otherwise affirm that judgment.