Case Title: Hilterbrand v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 96-90

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hilterbrand v. State1997 WY 4930 P.2d 1248Case Number: 96-90Decided: 01/10/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

Ricky Glen HILTERBRAND, 
Appellant (Defendant),

v.

The 
STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Appeal from District Court, Laramie County, Nicholas 
G. Kalokathis, J.

Sylvia Lee Hackl, State Public Defender; 
Deborah Cornia, Appellate Counsel, State Public Defender Program, Cheyenne, 
for appellant.

William U. Hill, Attorney General; Paul S. 
Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Sr. Assistant Attorney 
General; Kimberly A. Baker-Musick, Assistant Attorney General, for 
appellee.

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, 
GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶1]      After pleading 
guilty to charges of concealing stolen property and grand larceny, Appellant 
Ricky G. Hilterbrand was ordered to pay $10,500.00 in restitution to the victims 
of his crime. He appeals the portion of his sentence ordering him to pay this 
restitution.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Hilterbrand 
presents this issue:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in 
determining the amount of restitution that Appellant was ordered to 
pay?

[¶4]      The State agrees 
that the issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting the 
amount of restitution.

FACTS

[¶5]      In supplying the 
court with a factual basis for his guilty plea, Hilterbrand admitted that he 
stole a van from a car dealer in Oklahoma, drove it to Cheyenne, Wyoming, and 
attempted to conceal it here. He also admitted stealing a 1992 Toyota Camry in 
Cheyenne. Hilterbrand was also charged with stealing at least $8,000 that was in 
a purse inside the Camry at the time of its theft. Hilterbrand admitted to 
stealing the Camry, but he disputed taking the cash at the time he entered his 
guilty pleas. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue 
of restitution during the sentencing proceeding on January 11, 1996. One of the 
victims and the police officer who investigated the crime testified to prove the 
amount of the restitution.

[¶6]      The Camry 
belonged to a married couple who had recently arrived in Cheyenne from San 
Francisco. The district court found that before leaving San Francisco the wife 
had withdrawn about $4,300 in cash from bank accounts, had $4,000 which friends 
and family had given her, and, during a stop in Las Vegas, Nevada, the couple 
had won about $2,500 playing blackjack. The wife supplied the court with 
documentation of the withdrawals. The district court also found that she and her 
husband had spent about $300 for meals and lodging in Las 
Vegas.

[¶7]      The police 
officer testified that Hilterbrand had arrived in Cheyenne without money and 
received $200 from the local community action agency to pay rent on a room at 
the Ranger Motel. On the same evening that the Camry was stolen, Hilterbrand 
deposited $5,000 in $100 bills in the safe at the office of the Ranger Motel. 
Three people witnessed Hilterbrand's deposit of the cash. The next day, 
Hilterbrand removed the cash from the safe. He purchased a big screen 
television, a video cassette recorder and a Nintendo video game player. He also 
paid over $1,000 as a deposit and two months' rent on a mobile home. He 
purchased an expensive dinner at Red Lobster for four people and then finished 
the evening at the Cowboy South. The next day, he purchased a 1982 four-door car 
for $1,045 from a local car dealer. He paid for the car in $100 bills. The next 
day, Hilterbrand and his girlfriend and her children took a trip to 
California.

[¶8]      The district 
court ordered Hilterbrand to pay $10,500 in restitution. This appeal 
followed.

DISCUSSION

[¶9]      WYO. STAT. § 
7-9-103 (1995) requires the court to order restitution in a fixed, reasonable 
amount unless it specifically finds that the defendant is unable to pay. The 
amount of restitution fixed by the district court should be supported by 
evidence sufficient to afford a reasonable basis for estimating the loss. 
Brenning v. State, 870 P.2d 349, 350 (Wyo. 1994); Renfro v. State, 785 P.2d 491, 
493 (Wyo. 1990). A challenge to the amount of restitution set by the court must 
demonstrate an abuse of discretion. A court does not abuse its discretion unless 
it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. 
In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue 
is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did. Christensen v. 
State, 854 P.2d 675, 678 (Wyo. 1993).

[¶10]   Hilterbrand contends that the 
district court abused its discretion by setting an amount of restitution that 
was not reasonable and not supported by credible evidence. He contends there are 
three major problems with the testimony regarding restitution: 1) it conflicts 
as to the origin of the money in the car; 2) it conflicts as to the amount of 
money in the car; and 3) it conflicts as to the amount of time the victim held 
the money in her purse.

[¶11]   The victims of the crime were 
Japanese and the record shows that the wife did not speak or understand English 
very well. The district court carefully questioned her concerning the 
figures:

COURT: Give me 
those figures again. Wells Fargo, how much?

A. About 
$500.

COURT: And Bank of 
America?

A. About 
$800.

COURT: And how much 
money did you take out of this bank before you left San Francisco, the Bank of 
Canton?

A. About 
3,000.

* * * *

COURT: And how much 
money did your husband win, did you say?

A. About two - 
almost two-fifty something. I mean 2,500.

[¶12]   Questioning by the district 
attorney established that she also had in her possession about $4,000 received 
from family and friends. The record shows that the witness was definite as to 
the three sources of the money, the amount of the money and the time period 
involved. As the district court's findings are supported by the evidence, we 
affirm.