Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A04-1501-CR-8 | June 3, 2015 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Special Asst. to the State Public Defender

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Plainfield, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Cynthia L. Ploughe

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brent Simcox,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

June 3, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

52A04-1501-CR-8

Appeal from the Miami Circuit 

Court.

The Honorable Timothy P. Spahr, 

Judge.

Cause No. 52C01-1405-FB-21

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A04-1501-CR-8 | June 3, 2015 Page 2 of 5

[1] Brent Simcox appeals the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court after 

Simcox pleaded guilty to burglary as a class B felony. Simcox argues that there 

is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s valuation of the victim’s 

monetary loss. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts

[2] On May 10, 2014, Simcox broke into and entered the dwelling of his parents, 

Donald and Kimberly Simcox. He stole a number of items including 

Kimberly’s state tax refund check and jewelry. On November 13, 2014, Simcox 

pleaded guilty to class B felony burglary. The plea agreement provided that he 

would serve an eight-year sentence, with two years suspended to probation, and 

left the amount of restitution for the trial court to determine.

[3] On December 4, 2014, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and held an 

evidentiary hearing regarding the value of the items stolen from Kimberly. At 

the hearing, Kimberly testified as follows regarding the items and her estimate 

of their value:

 A state tax refund check worth $288;

 Four gold watches, two of which were antiques, which Kimberly testified 

were expensive watches and estimated their value at $300 apiece;

 Half-carat diamond earrings whose replacement cost would be $2,500;

 One-carat marquise diamond whose replacement cost would be $7,000;

 Marquise diamond ring purchased at a cost of $375;

 Two wedding bands that cost $700 when purchased thirty-seven years 

ago, and the replacement value of Kimberly’s band, which contains a 

diamond, would be $2,000;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A04-1501-CR-8 | June 3, 2015 Page 3 of 5

 Multiple necklaces belonging to Kimberly’s deceased mother, one of 

which was an emerald necklace with two diamonds that her father had 

made for her mother, and Kimberly estimated that the total value of all 

of the necklaces was $1,000;

 A family heirloom diamond ring, and Kimberly estimated the 

replacement cost would be $25,000.

Tr. p. 7-14.

[4] The trial court accepted Kimberly’s valuation of all items except for the family 

heirloom ring, which it valued at $1,000 rather than $25,000, and the two 

wedding bands, which it valued collectively at $2,200 rather than $2,700. The 

trial court ordered Simcox to pay restitution in the amount of $15,563. Simcox 

now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Simcox’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in 

calculating the amount of restitution he is ordered to pay. Indiana Code section 

35-50-5-3 provides that a trial court may order the defendant to make restitution 

to the victim of the crime. Among other things, the trial court “shall base its 

restitution order upon a consideration of . . . property damages of the victim 

incurred as a result of the crime, based on the actual cost of repair (or 

replacement if repair is inappropriate)[.]” I.C. § 35-50-5-3(a)(1). We review 

restitution orders for an abuse of discretion. Bickford v. State, 25 N.E.3d 1275, 

1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). The evidence supporting the amount of a restitution 

order is sufficient if there is a reasonable basis for the loss and it is not based on 

“mere speculation or conjecture.” T.C. v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1222, 1227 (Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A04-1501-CR-8 | June 3, 2015 Page 4 of 5

Ct. App. 2005). Sworn victim testimony may provide sufficient evidentiary 

support for a restitution order. Blixt v. State, 872 N.E.2d 149, 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2007).

[6] Initially, we note that Simcox does not dispute the valuation of the state refund 

check ($288), the Marquise diamond ring ($375), the half-carat diamond 

earrings ($2,500), or the one-carat diamond ring ($7,000). Simcox focuses on 

the remaining items, arguing that because Kimberly was merely estimating their 

value and had no basis upon which to support her estimation, the evidence was 

mere speculation or conjecture.

[7] With respect to the four gold watches, Kimberly testified that one of them was 

an antique handed down from her mother-in-law and another was her mother’s 

watch. All four were gold. Although she was unsure of their precise value, she 

was able to estimate that they were worth approximately $300 apiece. 

[8] Regarding her mother’s necklaces, she was unable to describe each of them 

with specificity. But she described one necklace that had been made for her 

mother by her father when he was serving in Thailand, testifying that it had an 

emerald with a diamond on either side of the emerald. Kimberly estimated that 

the total value of all of the necklaces was $1,000.

[9] With respect to the wedding bands of Kimberly and her husband, she testified 

that when they were purchased over thirty years ago they cost approximately 

$700. She also stated that her wedding band contains a diamond and estimated 

its replacement cost to be $2,000. The trial court elected to value the two bands 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A04-1501-CR-8 | June 3, 2015 Page 5 of 5

collectively at $2,200 rather than the full amount of $2,700 estimated by 

Kimberly.

[10] Finally, Kimberly estimated that her grandmother’s antique diamond ring was 

worth approximately $25,000. The trial court found that to be far too high of a 

valuation and instead valued that ring at $1,000.

[11] With respect to each of these items, Kimberly was able to describe them with 

specificity and detail. Cf. T.C., 839 N.E.2d at 1227-28 (holding that where 

victim was unable to state with certainty which stolen items had been returned 

to him, and which returned items were in a saleable condition, the evidence was 

insufficient to support the restitution order). Many of them were antiques and 

the jewelry included emeralds, diamond, silver, and gold. The trial court did 

not give carte blanche to Kimberly’s valuation, decreasing her estimated

amounts when it deemed it necessary. While Simcox presented argument and 

cross-examined Kimberly regarding her valuation, he presented no evidence of 

his own to counter Kimberly’s testimony. We find that Kimberly’s testimony 

about the value of these items was not mere speculation or conjecture, and that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Simcox to pay restitution 

in the amount of $15,563.

[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Najam, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.