### NUM BER 13-07- 239- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
JOSH A WA F RA NK LIN C HIL DS, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 9 th D istrict Co urt of M on tg ome ry

C ou nty , T exas


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Jos haw a F ra nkl in Chi lds , pl eaded g uil ty to b u rg lar

y of a habi tati on, a sec ond- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 30. 02(a )(1), ( c)( 2) (Vernon 200 3). In a si ng le is sue, C hil ds arg ues that the t ri a l court abuse d i ts dis creti on i n s etti ng the amount o f res ti tuti on. Spec ific all y , C hil ds ass erts (1 ) ther e w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce toT he a ccom pl i ces wer e Ant hony M i chael Ear l , C hr i st i na M ar i e Randal l , N i col e Ann Sear cy , ( t he 1 v ic tim ’s d a u g h te r ) a n d J o s e p h E m o r y T h o m p s o n . T h e y a r e n o t p a r tie s to th is a p p e a l. 2 suppo rtthe amount o rd er ed, a nd ( 2) the amount inc lud es sums from cr imes for w hic h he
w as n otc ha r g ed

. W e affi r m. A. F act s On M ay 2, 2 0 0 6 , C hil ds and four ac compl ic es w er e i ndi cte d for burg lar iz ing the 1 home of Ca ndy

Searcy
. Chi lds pl eaded g uil ty i n ex change for t he c our t defer ri ng adj udi cat ion and pla ci ng C hil ds on fiv e y ears p ro bati on. I n addi ti on, t her e w oul d be a hear ing to deter mine re sti tuti on. At t hat h ear ing , the only ev ide nce pr esent ed w as the test imony of Detec ti v e Toby Mc Laug hli n, w ho des cr ibe d the st atements C hil ds had mad e t o hi m and t he money aut horities ha d recovered. Originally Ch ilds h ad ma de a w ritten state me nt tha t his share from the burg lar

y w as $50,000, but in an i nter v iew w it h D etec ti v e M cLaug hli n he admit ted tha t he to ok mu ch mo re. Childs said tha t during t he burglary h e skimm ed $40 ,00 0 an d hid it in his pant s. He and his accom plices the n divi ded the rema ining cash a mo ng them selves,
w it h C hil ds re cei v ing a $4 0,000 share. S ome ti me l a te r, h e too k from a s hoe box the shares of tw o of hi s a cc ompli ces , t otal ing $80, 000, g iv ing C hil d s co n tr o l o v er a t otal of $160,00 0. W hen a s ked h ow mu ch ha d be en reco v ered f rom Childs, Detective McLaughlin ci ted mone y

r ecov ere d from hi s b ack pack ( $77,700 ) and fri ends ($ 21,000) . I n addi ti on, Det ect iv e M cLaug hli n r ecov er ed s ome ca sh thatC hil ds and hi s fr ien ds had s pent at a jew elr y st or e, of w hic h $1,500 w as from Chil ds. Final ly , some merchan dis e w as re cov er ed f rom a car belon ging to one of Childs’s accom plices. T here w as $1 2,5 15 o f merch and ise3

for w hic h r ecei pts w er e r ecov er ed, a nd ot her merc handi se for w hic h the re w as no recei pt
a n d fo r wh ic h De t e c t ive Mc L a u gh li n o f fe re d n o e s t i m a t e
. De t e c t ive Mc L a u gh li n ga ve Chi lds credi t for one- fifth of the mer chand is e for w hic h the re w as re cei pts ( $2,500)
conc lud ed th at t her e w as “roug hly $55,000 " sti ll unacc ounted for from the total $160, 000 that Chi lds admi tted to po ss ess ing

. The cour t ac cept ed D etec ti v e M cLaug hli n’s tes ti mony as true a n d a m e n d e d Childs’s com mu nity supe rv ision to require tha t he pa y $55 ,00 0 in restitut ion. Childs ap pea ls. In hi s s ole i ss ue, C hil d s conte nds that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by ord e rin g h im to pay

$55, 000 i n r est it uti on as a c ondi ti on of hi s c ommunit y su per v is ion

. Spe cif ically , he asse rts that there w as an insuf f icient fa ctua l basis for the a mo unt . He also
ass erts that thi s a mount for ces hi m to p ay r est it uti on for cr imes fo r w hic h he w as not charg ed. B. S tandard of Re v iew W e r ev iew

chall eng es to res ti tuti on orders u nder an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. Car twrig h t v . St ate , 605 S.W .2d 2 87, 2 89 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1980) ( “w hether to or der restitut ion as a co nditio n of proba tion is w ithin the soun d discretion of the trial court.”); In re C.T. , 43 S.W .3d 6 00, 6 02 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, n o p e t. ). An abus e of disc re tion oc curs i f the tr ial co urt ac ts w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing pr inc ipl es or

ac ts
ar bit ra ri ly

or unr eason abl y . Montgom er y v. State , 810 S.W .2d 372, 380 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 0). Tex as cour

ts’ abi li ty to ass ig n r est it u ti o n i s contro ll ed by st atute

. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.037 (V er non Supp. 2007)

. Cou rt s h av e i nter pr eted the s tatut e as impos ing thr ee li mits on the amount of rest it uti on a tr ial cour t c a n order

. See Campbell ,4

5 S.W .3d at 696 -97. First, the am oun t mu st be just and mu st have a factu al basis w ithin the l oss of the c omplai nant. Id. at 69 6. Seco nd, t he rest it uti on mus t be for an off ense for
w hic h the off ender is cr imi nal ly r espon si ble

. Id. at 697 . Th ird, the restitu tion m ust be paid to t he v ic ti m or

v ic ti ms of the off ense for w hic h the off ender i s c harg ed. Id. T o su p p o rt a re s t it u t io n o r d e r , t h e p r o s e c u t io n h a s t h e b u rd e n o f p ro vin g, b y a pr epondera n ce o f

t he ev ide nce, the amount o f los s s ust ain ed by the v ic ti m. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.037( k)

. C. Insuf f icient Factu al Basis Childs f irst arg ues th at the re is no factu al basis for t he am oun t of rest itution beca use Det ect iv e M cLaug hli n onl y tes ti fied abou t t he amountof money that Chi lds sai d he g ain ed, but the sta tuto ry

requirem ent is that the prosecu tion p ro v e “the a mo unt of the loss susta ined bythe victim. . . .” Id. It is not, how ev er , an abuse of a tr ial cour t’ s d is creti on to infer that the amount sto len direct ly co rrela tes to the a mount t hat a theft v ic ti m lo ses
. The fact th at t he prosec utor us ed C hil ds’ s w or ds to c ar ry his b u rd e n of proof reg ar din g the amount o f the v ic ti m’s l oss does not mean tha t he faile d to carry the b ur den. H er e, t he theft i nv olv ed a larg e s um of cas h, an d the off e n d e rs la te r m et t o di v ide the proceed s among thems elv es. I f any one i s i n a p osi ti on to know how much w as sto len , i t w oul d be the o ff enders. C hil ds tol d aut hor it ies thathe stole $ 160,000 ; i n l ig ht of the $102, 700
r ec ov ered from h i m, i t w as w i th i n th e tr i al c ou rt’ s d i s c r et i on t o be l i ev e hi m.

D. Failure to Use Valu es From a Presen ten ce Investigation Rep ort Childs al s o c on te nd s t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt s ho ul d ha v e us ed t he p r es en ten ce investig ation repo rt as the basis of the restitut ion amou nt. T he rep ort estim ate d the v ictim’s los s a t $50,000 cas h, $100,00 0 in jew elr y , tw o g uns w orth a combi ned $45 0, an d a b ro kenT h e p r e - s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t s ta te s th a t t h e s e e s ti m a te s w e r e p r o v id e d b y th e c o m p la in a n t’s 2 m ot her , who d i d no t l i v e i n t he h ouse.

C h i l d s p ro p o s e s $ 1 ,0 5 6 .4 0 a s th e a p p ro p ria te a m o u n t. 3
5 w ind ow v alu ed at$200. I f the s ums recov er ed from C hil ds a n d the other ac compl ic es 2
w er e subt ra cte d from the $ 150,650 tot al in the p re sent ence re commendat ion , t he amount
wo u ld b e si gn if ic a n t ly s m a ll e r t h a n t h e $ 5 5 , 0 0 0 Ch il d s wa s o rd e re d t o p a y. 3 There is , how ever , not hin g i n s tatut e or ca se law

thatobl ig es cour

ts to foll ow

the amount l is ted i n a p re sent ence inv est ig ati on r epor t. The st atute author iz ing the i mposi ti on of res ti tuti on l eav es the a mount up to the d is creti on of the cour t, to be bas ed on a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. Ar t. 42.037( a) . W e c oncl ude tha t basin g the amo unt of restitution on Childs’s state me nts i nste ad o f the pre sent ence inv est ig ati on repor

t w as not a n abus e of di sc re ti on.

E. Unvalued Mercha ndise Chi lds poi nts to the merchand is e reco v er ed f ro m an ac compl ic e’s ca r. Ther e w as no re cei pt for a por

ti on of t he merc handi se, and Chi lds re cei v ed no credi t for that por ti on. De t e c t i v e M c L a u g h l i n ’ s e s t i ma t e g a v e C h i l d s c r e d i t fo r 1 / 5 t h o f t h e v a l u e o f the
merc handi se for w hic h the re w as a r ecei pt, but o ff e re d n o e st imat e for the v alu e of the
re maini ng mer chand is e. Chi lds arg ues that thi s c our t s hou ld o rd er

a ne w hear ing to det ermin e the v alue of

t he add itiona l m ercha ndise

. Ho w ever, Dete ctiv e McLau ghlin also tes ti fied th at C hil ds did not h av e ac ces s t o the ca r. The S tate, therefore, arg ues that the trial court could have dete rmine d tha t this me rchan dise w as pa rt of an a ccom plice’s share and notg iv en C hil ds cr edi t for any of it , t hus the c our

t w as not o bli g ed to g iv e C hil ds an acc ur ate c re ditfor a ll of the merchand is e.6

In Campbe ll , the d ef end ant was o rdered t o pay $ 100 ,00 0 in restitutio n w hen there
w as ev ide nce that the defendant caus ed monetar y los s total ing $108,32 4.56 , a n d the Cou rt of C ri minal Appea ls hel d tha t t his r educe d amount“ had a factual bas is .” 5 S.W .3d at 69 6- 97. In Can tr

ell v. Sta te , t h e T e xa rk a n a Co u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld t h a ta n “a rb it ra ry” restitut ion award w as perm issible so long as it w as app lied in referen ce to a guiding rule
or pr inc ipl e. 75 S. W .3d 5 03, 5 12 ( Tex

. Ap p .–T ex ar kana 1999, pet. re f’d.)

. The st atute g ov er ni ng r es titutio n al l ow s t r i al c ou rts t o c on s i de r “ ot he r fac to rs t he c ou rt de em s appropr iat e” w hen det er mini ng the amount o f res ti tuti on. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42. 037 (c)( 2). Here, t her e w as an ar bit ra ry natu re to the c alc ula ti on of the credi t, b u t i t w or ked tow ar d C hil ds’ s a dv antag e. There is no e v ide nce in the re co rd c o n n e cti ng C hil ds to t he
merc handi se in the car , and no re q uirement that he recei v e full credi t for that merc handi se. If the t ri al cour

t chos e to aw ar d him par ti al credi t for the merc handi se, so l ong as there w as a bas is i n fact for th e amount , i t w as w it hin i ts dis creti on to do s o. F. R est it uti on for Unc harg ed C ri mes Chi lds al so cont ends that by as si g nin g hi m r est it uti on based on the mone y he t ook f rom h is accom plices, t h e t ri a l court ba sed th e am oun t of restitution on crimes for w hich he w as not c harg ed. There is nothing in the record to ind ic ate w hen C hil ds took hi s a cc ompli ces ’ money from the shoe box

. It is possi ble that moneyleft the shoe box or addi ti onal moni es entered itbetw een the nig ht the group burg lar iz ed Candy Searc y ’s home and the time Chi lds took the cas h f ro m the s hoe box

. Ag ain , t houg h, be caus e of hi s i nv olv ement i n the burg lar y and in the me e ting w her e the burg lars d iv ide d the money , C hil ds w as in a pos it ion to know7

w hether the shoe box

co ntai ned an amount e q ual to the tw o a cc o m p lic e s’ sh ar es of the sto len cash. C hil ds tol d D etec ti v e M cLaug hli n tha t i t di d, t hus ther e i s a bas is for t he tr ial
cour t’ s d eci si on. That C hil ds, of his ow n i nit iat iv e, re cei v ed a larg er sh are of the sto len money than did his co-de fend ant s shou ld not bar the v ictim f rom rece iv ing fu ll restitu tion, nor shou ld the fact that the Sta te i s n ot prosec uti ng C hil ds for s teal ing C andy Searcy ’s money

from his co ll eag ues. C our

ts ar e under

a s tatut or

y obl ig ati on to “ impos e a rest it uti on order that is as fa ir as possible to th e v ictim . . .” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.037( e) ( Ver non Supp. 2007)

. Red uci ng the amount of re sti tuti on bas ed on how the off enders d is tr ibu te t he sto len g oods among thems elv es w oul d be unfair to the v ic ti m. W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial
cour t di d notabus e i ts dis cr eti on i n det er mini ng the amount o f Chi lds ’s r est it uti on. C. C oncl usi on W e ov er ru le Chi lds ’s i ss ue and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 9th d ay

of June, 2008.