### CpJJfVrGr_APPir.ALS O^V i 20|ii APR 28 AH 10^ 32

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

v. VICTOR L. FERNANDEZ, Appellant, and JUNWYNNE FABIA a.k.a. JUNWYNNE REBUGIO FABIA, JUSTIN DANIEL MIRAMONTEZ, and VICTOR JOSUE PRIETO, and each ofthem, Defendants. Becker, J. —A defendant convic $7,201.75 in restitution for the cost of res No. 70108-8-1 DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: April 28, 2014

ed of cartheft was ordered to pay oring a stripped down Honda Civic to its former condition, including expensive specialty aftermarket items. We conclude the order ofrestitution was adequately supported, beyond speculation and conjecture, by the victim's sworn statement ofloss, accompanied by screen shots showing comparable marketplace pricing on various web sites.No. 70108-8-1/2 AppellantVictor L. Fernandez pleaded guilty to two counts oftheft of a motor vehicle. As part of his plea agreement, he agreed to pay restitution for all losses.One ofthe stolen cars was a 2000 Honda Civic belonging to Micah Spacek. When officers discovered Spacek's stolen Honda sitting on a driveway, ithad been stripped. Among the missing parts were the engine, suspension, sway bar, and two wheels and tires. 

### Atthe restitution hearing, the State requested restitution of$7,201.75 for the Honda. The request was supported by Spacek's sworn "VictimLoss 

### Statement" on a form provided bythe VictimAssistance Unit ofthe King County Prosecutor's Office. The form has a space for "TotalAmount Paid ByInsurance." 

### In this space, Spacekwrote "car only no aftermarket" and that his deductible was $500. In response to the form's directive to "List all missing ordamaged items and the value or repair ofeach," Spacek attached thirteen pages ofscreen shots from several web sites, including eBay, showing pictures and prices forvarious aftermarket items. These items included a car amplifier ($399.99), two 

### subwoofers ($199.00 each), an aftermarket security system ($699.99), a 

### suspension damper kit ($1,080.00), a customspeakersystem ($249.95), an aftermarkettransmission ($1,695.00), a cold air intake system ($276.40), a laser detector ($659.99), a twin loopsilencer ($913.00), an aftermarketclutch ($542.46), and an airflow converter ($284.99).No. 70108-8-1/3 The trial court imposed restitution as requested. On appeal, Fernandez contends that the order of restitution must be vacated because the evidence was insufficient to prove the amount of loss. The State bears the burden of proving restitution by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272, 285, 119 P.3d 350 (2005). We review a trial court's restitution order for an abuse ofdiscretion. State

v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675, 679, 974 P.2d 828 (1999). A trial court abuses its 

### discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d at 679-80. 

### Acourt's authority to impose restitution in a criminalcase is derived solely from statute. State v. Smith, 119 Wn.2d 385, 389, 831 P.2d 1082 (1992). 

### Statutes authorizing restitution should not be given an overlytechnical construction which would permit the defendantto escape from just punishment. State v. Davison, 116Wn.2d 917, 919, 809 P.2d 1374 (1991). Generally, restitution shall be ordered whenever an offense results in loss ofproperty. RCW 

### 9.94A.753(5). Restitution is to be based on "easily ascertainable damages." RCW 9.94A.753(3). The award ofrestitution must be based on a causal 

### relationship between the offense charged and proved and the victim's losses or 

### damages. State v. Blair, 56Wn. App. 209,214-15, 783 P.2d 102(1989). Because Fernandez's offense directlycaused Spacek's loss of the value of the 

### aftermarket items, it isappropriate that he be ordered to make restitution to Spacekfor those items.No. 70108-8-1/4 Fernandez contends, however, that without receipts documenting the compensation Spacek received from insurance, there is a risk that Spacekwill be doubly compensated for his loss. Inproving restitution, certainty ofdamages need not be shown with specific accuracy, butthe court must not engage in mere speculation or conjecture, and the amount ofrestitution must be supported by substantial credible evidence. State v. Pollard, 66 Wn. App. 779, 785, 834 P.2d 51. review denied, 120 Wn.2d 1015 (1992). Fernandez cites State v. Bennett, 63 Wn. App. 530, 821 P.2d 499 (1991). In Bennett, an orderofrestitution to a burglary victim, the defendant's mother,

was based on two sources ofinformation: the victim's list of stolen possessions 

### and work sheets from her insurance company. We found this evidence sufficient. 

### "We perceive no reason to question the reliability of the insurance company's accounting ofMs. Bennett's loss, given an insurer's strong financial interest in 

### not overpayingclaims." Bennett, 63 Wn.App. at 535 n.4. Fernandez contends that without a similaraccounting detailing what Spacek's insurer paid on his insurance claim, the figure of$7,201.75 is mere speculation and conjecture. Bennettdoes not hold thatwhen part of a victim's loss is covered by 

### insurance, an insurance company accounting isessential to prove restitution. As the trial court observed, it is "a little odd" that Spacek's insurerdid not make its 

### own claim for reimbursementof the amount paid out to coverthe basic vehicle. 

### Had the insurance company submitted a claim,Fernandezwould probably have 

### been ordered to pay the value of the basic vehicle in addition to aftermarketNo. 70108-8-1/5 

### upgrades. But the fact that the restitution order covers only the aftermarket items is not a problem. Spacek's sworn statement aboutwhat his insurance covered— 

### "car only no aftermarket"—was sufficiently definite to prove the amount of the loss for which he had not yet received reimbursement. And the screen shots

were adequate to supportthe market value claimed for the aftermarket items. Affirmed.