State v. Thomas , 811 Utah Adv. Rep. 57 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                          
    2016 UT App 79
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    STATE OF UTAH,
    Appellee,
    v.
    DALTON BOYD THOMAS,
    Appellant.
    Per Curiam Decision
    No. 20150624-CA
    Filed April 21, 2016
    Fourth District Court, Provo Department
    The Honorable James R. Taylor
    No. 151400780
    Margaret P. Lindsay and Douglas J. Thompson,
    Attorneys for Appellant
    Sean D. Reyes and John J. Nielsen, Attorneys
    for Appellee
    Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, and
    KATE A. TOOMEY.
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1     Appellant Dalton Boyd Thomas appeals the restitution
    order entered following his convictions for burglary and criminal
    mischief, both third-degree felonies. We affirm.
    ¶2     Thomas kicked open the door of a newly constructed
    house and used a hatchet to cause extensive damage to the walls,
    cabinets, bathroom fixtures, and other items. Thomas pled guilty
    and was placed on probation. The parties stipulated to complete
    restitution in the amount of $10,629. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-
    38a-302(2)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2014) (defining “complete
    restitution” as the amount “necessary to compensate a victim for
    all losses caused by the defendant”). Thomas requested a
    State v. Thomas
    hearing to present evidence regarding his ability to pay court-
    ordered restitution. See id. § 77-38a-302(2)(b) (defining “court-
    ordered restitution” as “the restitution the court having criminal
    jurisdiction orders the defendant to pay as a part of the criminal
    sentence at the time of sentencing or within one year after
    sentencing”). The district court received evidence that included
    Thomas’s financial declaration. In addition, Thomas testified that
    he had been employed for roughly two weeks and estimated
    that his gross earnings would be $1,000 per month. He reported
    that he had expenses of $80 per month for transportation and
    $50 per month for his telephone. He was paying $30 per month
    for Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P) supervision while on
    probation. He lived with his father and did not pay rent, but he
    would be required to contribute toward food when he had
    income. Thomas spent $22 per month on medication. Thomas’s
    father testified that Thomas would be expected to pay for his
    food and contribute to utilities when he began earning income.
    ¶3      The district court ordered Thomas to pay $10,629 in court-
    ordered restitution. The court found that there was no reason
    that Thomas could not pay the total amount if given enough
    time to do so. Accordingly, the court ordered Thomas to pay
    $125 per month toward restitution, in addition to the supervision
    fee to AP&P, and the court modified his probation term to eight
    years. 1 The restitution payment would accrue interest at three
    percent per annum. Defense counsel raised concerns about
    Thomas’s ability to pay this amount of court-ordered restitution,
    arguing that the district court had not adequately considered his
    limited resources or the burden that the installment payments
    1. The court stated that supervised probation would terminate
    once Thomas satisfied the treatment objectives, after which he
    would be on court probation for purposes of paying restitution.
    The record reflects that probation supervised by AP&P has
    ended.
    20150624-CA                     2               
    2016 UT App 79
    State v. Thomas
    over an eight-year period would pose. Defense counsel also
    argued that Thomas suffered from a mental illness, lacked
    education, and had limited future employment prospects.
    However, the court found that the amount was not an
    astronomical amount, as Thomas claimed, and was a reasonable
    amount for him to pay. The court concluded that there was no
    rational reason not to attempt to make the victim whole.
    ¶4      A trial court is required to determine both “complete
    restitution” and “court-ordered restitution.” 
    Id.
     § 77-38a-302(2).
    Thomas stipulated that complete restitution in the amount
    “necessary to compensate [the] victim for all losses caused by”
    his criminal activity was $10,629. When determining court-
    ordered restitution, a sentencing court takes into account the loss
    to the victim, as well as “the financial resources of the
    defendant”; “the burden that payment of restitution will impose,
    with regard to the other obligations of the defendant”; “the
    ability of the defendant to pay restitution on an installment
    basis”; “the rehabilitative effect on the defendant”; and “other
    circumstances that the court determines may make restitution
    inappropriate.” Id. § 77-38a-302(5)(c). Because a determination of
    court-ordered restitution involves consideration of additional
    factors, “[c]ourt-ordered restitution may be identical in amount
    to complete restitution, but it need not be so.” State v. Laycock,
    
    2009 UT 53
    , ¶ 30, 
    214 P.3d 104
    . “[I]n the case of restitution, a
    reviewing court will not disturb a district court’s determination
    unless the court exceeds the authority prescribed by law or
    abuses its discretion.” 
    Id. ¶ 10
    . A restitution order will be
    overturned for abuse of discretion only if “no reasonable
    [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” State v.
    Corbitt, 
    2003 UT App 417
    , ¶ 6, 
    82 P.3d 211
     (alteration in original)
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    ¶5     Thomas argues on appeal that the district court abused its
    discretion in setting the amount of court-ordered restitution. He
    argues that the district court did not consider his financial
    20150624-CA                     3                
    2016 UT App 79
    State v. Thomas
    resources “in any reasonable way” and “did not reasonably
    consider the burden that a $125 per month payment would be
    upon Thomas in light of his other financial obligations.” The
    State responds that because the record reflects that the district
    court was made aware of Thomas’s financial situation, it follows
    that the court considered this required factor. Thomas counters
    that the appropriate question for review on appeal is “whether
    any reasonable person would conclude that Thomas’s limited
    financial resources should not have any effect upon the court-
    ordered restitution.” Thomas asserts that “[t]he amounts of
    complete restitution and court-ordered restitution are only
    identical if the statutory factors that must be considered when a
    court makes the court-ordered amount have no effect.” Thomas
    essentially argues that because the court-ordered restitution
    amount was not lower than the complete restitution amount, the
    district court must have failed to consider the required factors
    and, therefore, it abused its discretion. Thomas further argues
    that “any reasonable person, under the circumstances, would
    find that the court-ordered restitution should be less than the
    complete amount of restitution”; thus, the district court “ignored
    the real world considerations it was statutorily obligated to
    consider.”
    ¶6     The record before us demonstrates that the district court
    considered Thomas’s present earnings, his income compared to
    expenses, his mental health conditions, and his employment
    prospects. Although the district court stated that Thomas could
    improve his employment prospects by obtaining his GED, the
    court based court-ordered restitution on his current income. The
    fact that complete and court-ordered restitution amounts are
    identical does not, standing alone, demonstrate that the district
    court failed to consider the statutorily required factors. See
    Laycock, 
    2009 UT 53
    , ¶ 30 (stating that the amount of court-
    ordered restitution may or may not be identical to the amount of
    complete restitution). Furthermore, Thomas has not
    demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by
    20150624-CA                    4                
    2016 UT App 79
    State v. Thomas
    showing that “no reasonable [person] would take the view
    adopted by the trial court.” Corbitt, 
    2003 UT App 17
    , ¶ 6
    (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did
    not abuse is discretion in ordering Thomas to pay restitution of
    $10,629 in installments of $125 per month for eight years and in
    extending the term of court probation for purposes of paying
    restitution.
    ¶7    Affirmed.
    20150624-CA                    5               
    2016 UT App 79
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20150624-CA

Citation Numbers: 2016 UT App 79, 372 P.3d 87, 811 Utah Adv. Rep. 57, 2016 Utah App. LEXIS 82, 2016 WL 1618412

Judges: Roth, Christiansen, Toomey

Filed Date: 4/21/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024