en 

### IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGT@J STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. AMY RENEE LYSON, Appellant. ) FILED: November 10,2014 O O -*: O -ri 

## No. 70752-3-1 3> ?p; DIVISION ONE V? 3i; CO f.~ -:-: UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appelwick, J. — Lyson appeals thetrialcourt's ordersetting restitution at $65,743. Lyson was convicted of second degree theft after she forged her employer's checks payable to herself. She argues that her due process rights were violated, because the restitution amount was supported by only unreliable hearsay evidence. We affirm.
FACTS Amy Lyson worked as an operations manager for Versatile Company. She was responsible for preparing checks for Eric Verzuh to review and sign. Verzuh is the president, founder, and owner ofVersatile. On October 20, 2011, Verzuh discovered that Lyson had forged his signature on 

### 107 checks payable to herself totaling $68,565.70. The amounts ranged from $50 to $1800. To cover up her theft, Lyson fraudulently noted inVersatile's accounting system that the checks were payments to various company vendors for company expenses. Verzuh also discovered that Lyson was paying her personal utility bills withthe Versatile creditcard totaling $6,133.33. Upon Verzuh's discoveries, he approached Lyson with his 

### findings. She admitted to the theft and agreed to give a recorded statement about it. After Verzuh reported her, detective Stacy Litsjo prepared a certification of probable

cause and determined that the total amount of loss to Versatile, including the credit cardNo. 70752-3-1/2 

### charges, was $74,699.03. On February 21, 2012 Lyson gave a statement to the police in which she admitted to forging the checks and to the unauthorized use ofthe company credit card. Lyson was charged with eight counts ofsecond degree theft. On June 1, 2012, Verzuh sent the court a letter stating the loss amount was $65,743.11. On June 5, 2012, Verzuh completed a victim loss statement under penalty ofperjury indicating thatthe loss amountwas "$65,743 inforged checks. Prosecutorhas detailed records." On February 4, 2013, Lyson pleaded guilty to eight counts oftheft in the second degree. During her statement she indicated that on eight specific dates in 2011, she wrongfullyobtained money belonging to heremployer, Versitile by forging Verzuh's name 

### on eight separate checks. In her plea agreement, she agreed to pay restitution for all losses "TBD [(to be determined)] for all charged & uncharged counts." Lyson was sentenced on March 22, 2013. 

### The restitution hearing was held on July 17, 2013. At the hearing, the court considered the information contained in the certification of probable cause, Verzuh's 

### declaration, and the "supporting material." Lyson argued the summary affidavit of the amount of loss was insufficient to prove the restitution amount. Counsel claimed that Verzuh never itemized the checks clearly illustrating the total amount he claimed. The 

### court stated that, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the appropriate loss amountfor restitution was $65,743. Lyson appeals the restitution order. DISCUSSION 

### Lyson argues that the trial court erred in setting her amount of restitution at $65,743. She contends that the State did not present substantial credible evidence ofNo. 70752-3-1/3
Versatile's loss, because it relied solely on hearsay and did not provide corroborating 

### evidence that gave Lyson a sufficient basis for rebuttal. Specifically, she contends the trial court's reliance on the victim loss statement was insufficient, and that the bank 

### records should have been presented during the restitution hearing. As a result, she argues that she suffered a violation of her right to due process. A trial court's order ofrestitution will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse of discretion. State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517, 523,166 P.3d 1167 (2007). While the amount 

### of loss claimed for restitution need not be established with specific accuracy, it must be 

### supported by substantial credible evidence. State v. Griffith, 164Wn.2d 960, 965, 195 P.3d 506 (2008). Evidence supporting restitution is sufficient ifit affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss and does not subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture. Jd. 

### Ifa defendant disputes the restitution amount, the State mustprove the damages 

## byapreponderanceoftheevidence. Statev. Kinneman, 155Wn.2d272, 285, 119 P.3d 350 (2005). Rules ofevidencedo notapply atrestitution hearings. Statev. Pollard, 66 Wn. App. 779, 784, 834 P.2d 51 (1992). When theevidence presented at a restitution 

### hearing iscomprisedofhearsay, dueprocess requiresthattheevidencebecorroborated such that the defendant has a sufficient basis for rebuttal. State v. Kisor, 68 Wn. App. 610, 620, 844 P.2d 1038 (1993). 

### In Kisor, the State soughtrestitution for the replacement of a police dog. \± at 613-14. Tosupport its claim, the Stateoffered an affidavitfrom a county risk manager thatlisted the value of a police dog at $3,500. Jd, at 613-14 n.2. Therisk manager's affidavitstatedthat she "'checked'"withtheTacoma police and Spokane CanineTrainingNo. 70752-3-1/4

Unit inreaching hervaluation. Id. at620. The CourtofAppeals found thatthetrialcourt's reliance on the affidavit violated Kisor's due process rights, jd. Itreasoned that, other than offering the risk manager's hearsay statements, the State provided nothing more than a rough estimate ofthe costs associated with purchasing a new animal and training it. ]d. The court held that the affidavit was not substantial credible evidence of the restitution figure set by the court. Id. Lyson relies on Kisor to argue that the State needed to provide additional corroborating evidence to afford hera sufficientbasis for rebuttal. But, in Kisor, the court
was more concerned withthefactthatthe restitution figure was an unsupported estimate and less concerned with the fact that the declarations were hearsay. See Kisor, 68 Wn. App. at 620. In Pollard, the court likewise found a reliance on hearsay evidence insufficient to 

### support the sum ofrestitution. 66Wn. App. at 786. Pollard was charged with unlawfully issuing checks from accounts at various banks from which he knew he did not have sufficientfunds, id. at 780. The information did not state the amount alleged to have 

### been taken as to any of the counts charged. Id at 785. By his plea, Pollard admitted that he had written the checks and that he agreed to make restitution on them, but not in any 

### particular amount. Id. The only evidence in the record supporting the restitution amount ordered was a police report recording what bank personnel at the various institutions stated the banks had lost.- \± at 786. The court held that the police report, standing 

### alone, which is double hearsay, was an insufficient basis upon which to base the sum of restitution ordered. Id. The court noted that with relative ease the State could haveNo. 70752-3-1/5 

### produced bank records or personnel to precisely and conclusively establish the actual
amounts lost. ]d. Here, the courthad sufficientevidenceto enterthe restitution award. First,Verzuh 

### provided a declarationfrom personalknowledge stating the amount of the loss. Second, the court had before it the certification of probable cause which provided the detail to 

### support the amount ofrestitution ordered. While the probable cause statement might 

### have been subject to a hearsay objection standing alone, as was the case in Pollard, 

### Lyson had stipulated to the use ofthe certification ofprobable cause for sentencing. Restitution is an integral part ofsentencing. Statev. Dedonado, 99Wn. App. 251, 257, 

### 991 P.2d 1216 (2000). The trial courtdid not abuseits discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of$65,743.
We affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

# •C/i//^.^ (, C\J, 

# t