Opinion ID: 2714904
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Forfeiture Issue Is Moot

Text: Deskins also challenges the court's order that seven days after the sentence, any of her remaining animals would be forfeited to the State. At the time of the verdict, the sheriffs office had returned 15 dogs to mitigate the costs of keeping them and it never seized her livestock, which were also subject to the ultimate sentence. Again, Deskins cites former RCW 16.52.200(3) and argues that the statute only allows forfeiture of animals held by law enforcement. We do not reach this issue because it is moot. An issue is moot if it is not possible for this court to provide effective relief. Klickitat County Citizens Against Imported Waste v. Klickitat County, 122 Wn.2d 619,631, 860 P.2d 390, 866 P.2d 1256 (1993). Mootness is a jurisdictional concern and may be raised at any time. Citizens for Financially Responsible Gov 't v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d 339, 350, 662 P.2d 845 (1983). When an appeal is moot, it should be dismissed. Klickitat County, 122 Wn.2d at 631. The forfeiture challenge is moot for two reasons. First, the court's order regarding possible forfeiture was related to the two-year probation on living with or owning animals. That probation is now expired, and our decision cannot provide Deskins with any effective relief. Second, the record does not indicate that any animals were ever forfeited. Deskins and Benson were given the opportunity to rehome the animals in order to comply with the terms of probation before any 11 State v. Deskins No. 88140-5 forfeiture occurred. Without evidence of actual forfeiture in this case we are further limited in our ability to provide relief. The issue is moot and we decline to reach its merits. IV The Trial Court Did Not Violate Deskins's Due Process Rights by Ordering Restitution The trial court did not violate Deskins's due process rights when it proceeded to sentencing 22 minutes after the trial and ordered her to pay restitution to the victims of her crime and to those who cared for her animals while they were seized. Deskins argues that she was not given sufficient notice and opportunity to refute the restitution numbers and that the information used to calculate the restitution amount was not reliable. Her arguments are unpersuasive. A. Deskins Had Sufficient Notice and Opportunity To Be Heard The authority to impose restitution is statutory. State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960, 965, 195 P.3d 506 (2008). Under RCW 9A.20.030(1), a trial court may impose restitution to repay victims of crime for their loss. Under former RCW 16.52.200(4 ), a trial court may impose restitution to repay reasonable costs incurred pursuant to this chapter by law enforcement agencies, animal care and control agencies, or authorized private or public entities involved with the care of the animals. Reasonable costs include expenses of the investigation, and the animal's care, euthanization, or adoption. Id. 12 State v. Deskins No. 88140-5 These statutes gave the defendant sufficient notice that restitution was a possibility and Deskins knew that the restitution could be substantial. She knew that Winnie's owners suffered approximately $1,400 in damages for her injuries and that the sheriffs office cared for her dogs from early October until December 24 when she released many of them to the county. 4 Many of these dogs needed medical care, several were pregnant and gave birth, several were euthanized, and others were eventually rehomed through an adoption process. Deskins had notice that the costs of treating and caring for approximately 40 dogs for almost three months would be substantial. Defense counsel initially asked for the court to decide the restitution issues at a later date, stating that he [didn't] think that those numbers can just be signed off on. 3 TR at 619. Then Captain George spoke on behalf of the county and presented a bill totaling the costs that the sheriffs office incurred. After that point, Deskins did not object to the restitution amount. Nor did she object to the restitution amount at a hearing to amend her sentence that occurred in April 20 10. From indictment to verdict, Deskins's trial lasted nearly one and a half years, and at all times she knew that the State could seek restitution. She had the opportunity to be heard at sentencing but failed to respond to statements and bills from the sheriffs office. 4At least two dogs were released around Thanksgiving-one elderly dog that SpokAnimal thought would do best in a home environment and one that belonged to Benson. But most of the seized dogs remained under State control until December 24. 13 State v. Deskins No. 88140-5 Additionally, the trial court did not err by denying Deskins's motion to continue sentencing. The decision whether to grant a continuance is largely within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Eller, 84 Wn.2d 90, 95, 524 P.2d 242 ( 197 4). That decision will be disturbed only upon a showing that the accused has been prejudiced and/or that the result of the trial would likely have been different had the continuance not been denied. Jd. Deskins has made no such showing that the amount of restitution would have been any different if she had been given a continuance. Nor does she cite any authority for the proposition that a district court may not proceed to sentencing shortly after a verdict is read. We hold that her due process rights were not violated by the sentencing in this case. B. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Fixing the Amount of Restitution Deskins also claims that the restitution amounts were based on insufficient evidence. When disputed, the facts supporting a restitution award must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272, 285, 119 P.3d 350 (2005). While the claimed loss 'need not be established with specific accuracy,' it must be supported by 'substantial credible evidence.' Griffith, 164 Wn.2d at 965 (quoting State v. Fleming, 75 Wn. App. 270, 274-75, 877 P.2d 243 (1994)). 'Evidence supporting restitution is sufficient if it affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss and does not subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.' !d. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Hughes, 154 14 State v. Deskins No. 88140-5 Wn.2d 118, 154, 110 P.3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 126 S. Ct. 2546, 165 L. Ed. 2d 466 (2006)). Courts may rely on a broad range of evidence-including hearsay-because the rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings. ER 1101(c)(3). Both parties cite to State v. Kisor, 68 Wn. App. 610, 844 P.2d 1038 (1993), arguing that it supports their position. The trial court in Kisor ordered $17,3 80 in restitution after the defendant killed a police dog. !d. at 613-14. At sentencing, the trial court considered only affidavits, and the State produced an itemized affidavit of the costs of replacing the dog. !d. The affidavit included estimates for room and board during the dog's training. !d. at 614 n.2. The Court of Appeals reversed the restitution order, saying that the affidavit contained hearsay statements, was nothing more than a rough estimate, and gave no indication of where [the State] obtained the figures. !d. at 620. This case is distinguishable from Kisor, and we hold that the restitution was supported by sufficient evidence in this case. Captain George presented bills detailing the costs of caring for the animals. It is immaterial that the court relied on hearsay because the rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing. ER 1101 ( c)(3 ). The statements and documents were not speculation or conjecture but rather actual amounts billed to the sheriffs office by SpokAnimal. The court considered the evidence for 7 4 minutes and found it sufficiently credible to impose restitution. While 15 State v. Deskins No. 88140-5 $21,582.81 may seem like a large amount of money, the trial court noted that it was substantially below the actual cost of caring for nearly 40 dogs for nearly three months. 3 TR at 640. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the amount. Deskins argues that the State fails to prove the required causal relationship between crime and expense merely by presenting a summary or list of expenditures. Suppl. Br. ofPet'r at 19. Not true. Former RCW 16.52.200(4) makes it clear that the State may seek restitution for reasonable costs such as expenses of the investigation, animal care, euthanization, and adoption. This statute shows the causallinlc between animal mistreatment and subsequent care by the State. Because Deskins confined her animals in an unsafe and illegal manner, the State had to seize them and give them proper care. The State did not need to provide any causal evidence except that it seized the animals in connection to an unlawful confinement of animals charge and that it incurred costs as a result. We affirm the Court of Appeals.