Court Opinion

ID: 9764951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:45:24.73778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:02.522326
License: Public Domain

BRYANT, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
.Where the trial court’s recommendation as to restitution is supported by some evidence in the record and complies with our statutes and case law, the trial court’s order of restitution must be affirmed.
The majority opinion states that the only evidence presented as to the amount of damages was Ms. McCosker’s testimony regarding the amount as estimated by a repair person and her testimony that she had submitted an estimate of the repairs to the District Attorney’s office. The majority also emphasizes that there is no estimate of repairs in the record. This appears to be the sole factual basis on which the majority relies to support its legal reasoning to vacate the order of restitution. Because I believe the majority opinion contradicts settled law on restitution and would open the door to many frivolous challenges to properly entered orders of restitution, I must respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority opinion *562vacating the trial court’s order of restitution. As to the remaining issues, I concur with the majority.
“As a condition of probation, a defendant may be required to make restitution or reparation to an aggrieved party or parties .who shall be named by the court for the damage or loss caused by the defendant arising out of the offense or offenses committed by the defendant.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(d) (2009). “Restitution, imposed as a condition of probation, is not a legal obligation equivalent to a civil judgment, but rather an option which may be voluntarily exercised by the defendant for the purpose of avoiding the serving of an active sentence.” State v. Smith, 99 N.C. App. 184, 186-87, 392 S.E.2d 625, 626 (1990), cert. denied, 483 S.E.2d 189 (1997) (citing Shew v. Southern Fire & Casualty Co., 307 N.C. 438, 298 S.E.2d 380 (1983)). “The amount of restitution ordered by the court must be supported by the evidence. The trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact. If there is some evidence as to the appropriate amount of restitution, the recommendation will not be overruled on appeal.” State v. Freeman, 164 N.C. App. 673, 677, 596 S.E.2d 319, 322 (2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
For example, in State v. Hunt, the defendant argued
that the trial court’s recommendation of restitution as a condition of work release must be vacated because it is fatally ambiguous and unsupported by the evidence. The victim, Matt Stephens, testified that the hospital bill “is $10,364” and the doctor’s bill “around $8,000.” The court recommended that defendant be required to pay restitution from his work release earnings to “Matt Stephens or Hospital or Doctor to be Determined $18,364.00____”
80 N.C. App. 190, 195, 341 S.E.2d 350, 354 (1986). Because there was “some evidence as to the appropriate amount of restitution],]” we found no error. Id. Further, “]t]estimony from victims about the value of their [damages], even without receipts or documentation, has been held sufficient to support an order of restitution.” State v. Puckett, No. COA09-1632, 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 1088, at 13-14 (July 6, 2010) (unpublished) (citing State v. Cousart, 182 N.C. App. 150, 154-55, 641 S.E.2d 372, 375 (2007) and Hunt).
Here, Ms. McCosker testified that she had received a repair estimate in the amount of “thirty-something thousand dollars,” and that she gave an estimate of that cost to the District Attorney’s office. *563Further, the transcript of the sentencing hearing in the record on appeal reflects the following:
[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I’d approach with the gold sheet which shows he is a Level I for felony sentencing. I’m also passing up a restitution worksheet drawn up our office in the amount of thirty-nine thousand three hundred thirty-two dollars and forty-nine cents. You’ve heard the evidence. They’ve testified. If you’d like to hear from them, I’d be happy, but the State would rest on the evidence we put forth.'
Court: All right.
Court: This sentence is suspended and the defendant placed on supervised probation for sixty months, and the sixty months is because of the large amount of restitution. He will pay thirty-nine thousand three hundred thirty-two dollars and forty-nine cents in restitution to Dale Moore.
While the transcript indicates that defendant’s counsel urged the trial court not to impose such a high restitution amount, arguing that the amount should be reflected in a civil judgment, there was no specific objection to the worksheet. Thus, the amount of restitution awarded by the trial court was consistent with both Ms. McCosker’s testimony and the worksheet presented by the State. The testimony and worksheet constitute “some evidence as to the appropriate amount of restitution,” and, therefore, “the recommendation will not be overruled on appeal.” Freeman, 164 N.C. App. at 677, 596 S.E.2d at 322 (citing Hunt, 80 N.C. at 195, 341 S.E.2d at 354). For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s award of restitution.