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

VIVIAN ONG, Appellant. No. 73362-1-

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: March 7, 2016 IS

I —J

vo "n>J:1r» •**£"TOTTM""

3p
Verellen, A.C.J. — Vivian Ong challenges the trial court's restitution orderfollowing her deferred disposition for attempted residential burglary. She contends insufficient evidence supports the amount ofrestitution due and no causal connection exists between her crime and the damages to the victim's custom front door. The victimtestified that her 

### door sustained cracks after Ong and three otherjuveniles had repeatedly kicked it. But for Ong's crime, the damage to the front doorwould not have occurred. We conclude sufficientevidence supports the restitution order, and a causal connection exists between Ong's crime and the property damages. We affirm the trial court's restitution order. FACTS Ong and three otherjuveniles attempted to enter Donna Youngblood's home by 

### repeatedly kicking her front door. Youngblood returned home and found her front door damaged and graffiti sprayed on her house.No. 73362-1-1/2 

### The State charged Ong withattempted residential burglary. The trial court granted 

### Ong a deferred disposition and ordered her to pay restitution to be determined at a later
date. The first restitution hearing occurred on February 6, 2015. The trial court awarded 

### Youngblood $44.67 in restitution forthe graffiti damage, but concluded there was 

### insufficientevidence supporting the damage to her front door. The court gave the State leave to gather additional information aboutthe front door. The second restitution hearing occurred on March 26, 2015. Youngblood testified 

### that her front door sustained damage where the juveniles had repeatedly kicked it and that the doorframe was "cracked and separated."1 The front door handle was also broken, and there was a crack inthe window connected to the door. Youngblood's neighbor had to 

### clamp and to glue the door together to allow ittotemporarily function. Thetrial court 

### imposed restitution forthe cost ofreplacing the entirefront door. The court ordered $4,030.67 in restitution; $500 for Youngblood's insurance deductible and $3,530.67 to her insurance company. Ong appeals the restitution order. ANALYSIS 

### Ong challenges the amount ofrestitution due, arguing insufficientevidence supports replacement ofYoungblood's door. We disagree. We review a restitution orderfor abuse ofdiscretion.2 A trial court's authority to 

### impose restitution isstatutory.3 Atrial courtabuses its discretion ifits restitution orderis

1Report ofProceedings (RP) (Mar. 26, 2015) at 22. 2State v. Horner, 53 Wn. App. 806, 807, 770 P.2d 1056 (1989). 3State v. Deskins. 180 Wn.2d 68, 81, 322 P.3d 780 (2014).No. 73362-1-1/3 

### not authorized by statute.4 

### Restitution applies ifa crime results in any "loss ordamage" to property.5 The property losses or damages must be causally connected to the crime for which the 

### defendant is convicted.6 "Losses are causally connected if, but forthe charged crime, the victim would not have incurred the loss."7 Restitution for loss ofproperty "is limited to 

### damages that are 'easily ascertainable.'"8 To prove damages, the victim need onlypresent evidence that affords a reasonable basis forestablishing the loss.9 A restitution order 

### must be supported by sufficient evidence.10 Youngblood purchased the door six years ago from a specialty mill workshop for about $2,000, plus the cost ofinstallation. The doorwas custom and had to be installed as 

### a single unit. The door was not significantly damaged before the incident. Youngblood described cracks inthe doorframe and damage to the doorjamb. The cracks inthe 

### doorframe "were all separated."11 There was also a crack in the windowconnected to the door nextto the deadbolt. The front door handle was broken, and Youngblood's neighbor had to clamp and to glue the doortogetherto allow it to close. 

### Youngblood was uncertain how to describe the damage to the dooritself. She testified thatthere were "cracks inthe doorwhere the [juveniles'] footprints" were from

4 Horner, 53 Wn. App. at 807. 5RCW13.40.190(1)(a). 6 State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960, 965-66, 195 P.3d 506 (2008). 7jd at 966. 8State v. Bennett, 63 Wn. App. 530, 535, 821 P.2d 499 (1991) (quoting RCW 13.40.020(26)). 9Id (quoting Horner, 53 Wn. App. at 808). 10 State v. Fambrough, 66 Wn. App. 223, 225, 831 P.2d 789 (1992). 11 RP(Mar. 26, 2015) at 22.No. 73362-1-1/4 

### kicking the door.12 She acknowledged that the cracks were not the same as the cracks in the doorframe and that no one put theirfoot allthe way through the solid core door. Youngblood discussed repairing the doorwith her contractor, butthe contractor indicated the damage could not be repaired. Youngblood described the damage to the single unit consisting ofthe door, doorframe, doorjamb, door handle and adjoining window. She purchased an exact replica custom doorfrom the same specialty mill workshop. She testified to the cost ofthe custom replacement door unit. We conclude sufficient evidence supports that the custom door, as well as the doorframe, doorjamb, door handle, and window portion ofthe single door unit were 

### damaged. Butfor Ong's crime, the damage to the door unitwould not have occurred,13 and Youngblood's testimony adequately established that replacement ofthe entire door
unit was reasonable. We affirm the trial court's restitution order.

WE CONCUR: 

# Z^^L^JH //

12RP(Mar. 26, 2015) at 31-32. 

### 13 Youngblood relies on State v. Dedonado forthe proposition that a "causal connection is not established simply because a victimsubmits proof ofexpenditures for 

### replacing property stolen ordamaged bythe person convicted." 99 Wn. App. 251, 257, 991 P.2d 1216 (2000). Buthere, Youngblood testified aboutthe door's damage and 

### provided proof of its replacement cost, thereby establishing a causal connection between the damage and the crime.