COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

 

JOHN ALEXIS BAZEMORE 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 0867-96-1 JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES 

 AUGUST 26, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 

E. Preston Grissom, Judge 

 John W. Brown for appellant. 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 John Alexis Bazemore, appellant, pled guilty to grand 

larceny. Appellant's participation in the larceny consisted of 

his having driven a rented truck to the Givens Corporation 

(Givens), helping others load the truck with all terrain 

vehicles, motorcycles, and other items, driving the loaded truck 

to a meeting place, and then driving the truck to a farm where he 

helped unload it. The total value of the stolen property was 

approximately $150,000. 

 On March 21, 1996, appellant was sentenced to ten years in 

prison, suspended, and ordered to pay restitution of $42,804.46. 

 On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in 

 determining the amount of restitution. He argues that the 

restitution amount should not have included the expenses that 

Givens incurred in retrieving the stolen items and in determining 

the amount of its loss. He also contends that because his role 
 2 

in the theft was minor, the court erred in requiring him to pay 

the full amount of restitution. We hold that the trial court 

acted within its discretion in determining the amount of and 

terms and conditions of the restitution to be paid. Therefore, 

we affirm the trial court's decision. 

 Code § 19.2-305.1(A) provides that "no person convicted of a 

crime . . . which resulted in property damage or loss, shall be 

placed on probation or have his sentence suspended unless such 

person shall make at least partial restitution for such property 

damage or loss." Restitution for the property damage or loss "is 

a well established sentencing component, intended to benefit both 

offender and victim." Frazier v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 719, 

721-22, 460 S.E.2d 608, 609 (1995). Sentencing statutes are to 

be liberally construed to give the trial court broad discretion. 

See Deal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 157, 160, 421 S.E.2d 897, 

899 (1992). 

 Code § 19.2-305.1(C) states that "the court, in its 

discretion, shall determine the amount to be repaid by the 

defendant and the terms and conditions thereof." The burden of 

proving the amount of "property damage or loss" for purposes of 

applying Code § 19.2-305.1(A) is by the preponderance of the 

evidence. See Alger v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 252, 258, 450 

S.E.2d 765, 768 (1994) (citations omitted). The evidence proved 

that some of the stolen property was recovered. Givens had to 

pay American Honda $44,901.21 for items Givens had received from 
 3 

American Honda but could not sell because the items were not 

returned or were damaged. The salvage value of the returned 

property was $15,469.13. Deducting that amount from the amount 

paid to American Honda left Givens with a net loss of $29,432.08. 

 Other expenses incurred by Givens because of the theft included 

truck rental to pick up the stolen property ($76.38); the costs 

of the survey of the property for damage ($1,264); handling labor 

costs ($64); inventory labor costs ($5,120); supervisory costs 

($440); forklift costs ($648); and management time ($5,760). The 

Commonwealth proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

total amount lost, excluding the amount of lost interest, was 

$42,804.46. The trial court correctly determined that a victim 

is entitled to recover the expenses of determining the amount of 

the loss. Therefore, the expenses that Givens incurred in 

calculating the full impact and cost of the theft were properly 

included in the amount of restitution. Thus, the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion by granting $42,804.46 in restitution to 

Givens. 

 Moreover, the trial court properly exercised its discretion 

in determining "the terms and conditions" of the restitution. 

Code § 19.2-305.1(C). Although appellant was acting in concert 

with others, he was guilty of all crimes committed and was fully 

responsible for the total loss the victim sustained. The court 

determined that appellant would be jointly and severally liable 

for Givens' total loss. The court also ordered that any amounts 
 4 

paid by the codefendants would reduce the amount that appellant 

would ultimately be required to pay in restitution. The trial 

court acted within its sentencing authority in ordering 

restitution in the amount of $42,804.46. See Code 

§ 19.2-305.1(C). 

 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in including the 

victim's expenses in determining the amount of the restitution or 

in making appellant jointly and severally liable for Givens' 

total loss. 

 Affirmed.