IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. BRUNO MOLINA, Appellant. er^ No. 73025-8-1 c_

vx>

CO UNPUBLISHED OPINION f; FILED: January 19, 2016 Verellen, A.C.J. — A trial court may order restitution ifthe State proves thatthe 

### victim's "loss or damage"would not haveoccurred "butfor" the crime.1 "Washington 

### does notrequire proofofproximate cause as thatterm is usedin tort law."2 Bruno Molina pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to elude police vehicles. The trial court ordered restitution for "damage" to several patrol cars, a parked car, and a stolen car 

### driven byMolina after he led policeofficers on a high-speed chase. HadMolina not 

### attempted to eludepolice vehicles, officers would not have rammed the stolen car that in turncollided with a parked car. We conclude Molina's conduct in attempting to elude police vehicles was a "butfor" cause of the damages. We affirm the trial court's restitution order.

1 RCW 13.40.190(1 )(a). 

### 2State v. Harris. 181 Wn. App. 969, 971, 327 P.3d 1276 (2014).No. 73025-8-1/2
FACTS 

### The material facts are undisputed. When a police officersaw Molina driving a stolen car, the officer activated his overhead lights and siren. Molina sped away. He exceeded the speed limit, ran red lights and stop signs, and drove into oncoming traffic. In an effort to disable Molina's car, an officer rammed Molina's car and caused it to 

### momentarily stop. Molinaregained control and sped away. 

### Multiple officers joined the pursuit. An officerrear-ended Molina's car, causing it to hitseveral parked cars. Molina regained control and sped away. Another officer slammed into Molina's car but was unable to stop him. Finally, an officerdisabled Molina's car by ramming into it. The State charged Molina with one count ofattempting to elude a police vehicle 

### and one count of hitand run. Molinapleaded guilty to attempting to elude a police vehicle, and the State dismissed the hit and run charge. The State sought restitution for damages caused during the police pursuit. Overdefense objection, the trial court imposed restitution of$74,948.55 for damages to three patrol cars, the stolen car, and
one parked car. The trial court denied Molina's motion for reconsideration. Molina appeals the order of restitution. ANALYSIS Molina challenges the trial court's restitution order. He contends he did not directly cause any loss or damage to property as a result of his conviction for attempting to elude a police vehicle. We disagree.No. 73025-8-1/3 We review a restitution order for abuse ofdiscretion.3 A trial court abuses its discretion if its restitution order is not authorized by statute.4 

### A trialcourt's authority to impose restitution is statutory.5 Restitution applies ifa 

### crime results in any "loss ordamage" to property.6 Restitution is allowed only for property losses or damages that are causally connected to the crime for which the 

### defendant isconvicted.7 "Losses are causally connected if, but for the charged crime, the victim would not have incurred the loss."8 Adefendant can be held liable for losses resulting from charged criminal acts, even ifthe offense of conviction does not require or take into account those losses.9 

### State v. Hiett is instructive.10 There, after two juveniles jumped from a stolen car, the driver and another passenger crashed into a truck and a storefront. The three passengers were convicted oftaking a motorvehicle without permission. Thejuveniles who jumped, along with the driver and the passengerwho remained inthe car, were ordered to pay restitution for damages resulting from the crash.



### 3State v. Landrum. 66 Wn. App. 791, 795, 832 P.2d 1359 (1992). 4State v. Horner, 53 Wn. App. 806, 807, 770 P.2d 1056 (1989). 5State v. Deskins. 180 Wn.2d 68, 81, 322 P.3d 780 (2014). 

### 6RCW 13.40.190(1 )(a). 7State v. Griffith. 164 Wn.2d 960, 965-66, 195 P.3d 506 (2008). 8jd, at 966. 9See, e.g.. State v. Thomas. 138 Wn. App. 78, 83, 155 P.3d 998 (2007) (defendant convicted of driving underthe influence, but acquitted ofvehicular assault, 

### was properly ordered to pay restitution forpassenger's injuries); Landrum, 66 Wn. App. at 799-80 (restitution for victim's sex abuse counseling was propereven though defendants pleaded to lesser charges offourth degree assault). 10154 Wn.2d 560, 115 P.3d 274 (2005).No. 73025-8-1/4 

### The Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order. The court applied a "butfor" test to determine the causal linkbetween the conviction and the damage: butfor taking the car, the crash and the resulting damage to the car and to the property would not 

### have occurred.11 The court concluded thatthe damage would not have occurred but for 

### taking the car.12 Molina pleaded guilty to attempting to elude a police vehicle. The $74,948.55 restitution orderwas based on the damage to the stolen car, the patrol cars, and a 

### parked car. Similar to Hiett. but for Molina's attemptto elude police vehicles, officers would not have needed to disable Molina's car, which resulted in the damage to the

cars. 

### Foreseeability is notrequired for a restitution order.13 Buteven ifitwere, the damages sustained here to the police cars, the stolen car, and a parked car "were a foreseeable consequence" of Molina'sconduct.14 To the extent Molina suggests the loss ordamage to propertywas not proximatelycaused by his conduct, he cites no 

### authority for a proximate cause standard.15

11 id, at 566. 12 id, 13 State v. Tobin. 161 Wn.2d 517, 524, 166 P.3d 1167 (2007); State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675, 677, 974 P.2d 828 (1999). 14Hiett. 154Wn.2dat564. 15 Molina's reliance on State v. Bauer, 180 Wn.2d 929, 329 P.3d 67 (2014), is 

### misplaced. In anentirely differentcontext, theBauercourt held "'legal cause'in criminal cases differs from, and is narrowerthan, 'legalcause' in torts cases in Washington." Jd. at 940. The Bauercourt did not address the causal relationship required for restitution.No. 73025-8-1/5 

### Molina's reliance on State v. Hartwell is unavailing.16 There, the defendant was 

### convicted ofhit andrun for leaving the scene of anaccident and wasordered to pay restitution forthe victims' injuries. The Hartwell court reversed the restitution order because the victim's injuries occurred before the defendant leftthe scene ofthe 

### accident: "Had Hartwell stayed at the scene, thereby notcommitting the offense, the 

### injuries presumably would have been the same."17 Unlike Hartwell, Molina's attempt to elude police vehicles set in motion the events that caused the officers to ram Molina's
car into a parked car. CONCLUSION 

### We conclude the damages to several police cars, a parked car, and the stolen 

### car driven byMolina were causally connected to Molina's attempt to elude police vehicles. We affirm the trial court's restitution order.

WE CONCUR:

16 38 Wn. App. 135, 684 P.2d 778 (1984), overruled on other grounds. State v. Krall. 125 Wn.2d 146, 881 P.2d 1040 (1994). 17 Id. at 140.