State Of Washington v. V.o., 8/21/99 ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 73362-1-
IS
Respondent, I
—J
"n>J:1r»
•**£"TOT™""
VIVIAN ONG, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
vo 3p
Appellant. FILED: March 7, 2016
Verellen, A.C.J. — Vivian Ong challenges the trial court's restitution order following
her deferred disposition for attempted residential burglary. She contends insufficient
evidence supports the amount of restitution due and no causal connection exists between
her crime and the damages to the victim's custom front door. The victim testified that her
door sustained cracks after Ong and three other juveniles had repeatedly kicked it. But for
Ong's crime, the damage to the front door would not have occurred. We conclude
sufficient evidence 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 other juveniles 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 with attempted 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 for the graffiti damage, but concluded there was
insufficient evidence supporting the damage to her front door. The court gave the State
leave to gather additional information about the 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 in the window connected to the door. Youngblood's neighbor had to
clamp and to glue the door together to allow itto temporarily function. The trial court
imposed restitution for the cost of replacing the entire front 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 of restitution due, arguing insufficient evidence supports
replacement of Youngblood's door. We disagree.
We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion.2 A trial court's authority to
impose restitution is statutory.3 Atrial court abuses its discretion if its restitution order is
1 Report of Proceedings (RP) (Mar. 26, 2015) at 22.
2 State v. Horner, 53 Wn. App. 806, 807, 770 P.2d 1056 (1989).
3 State 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 or damage" 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 for the charged crime, the
victim would not have incurred the loss."7 Restitution for loss of property "is limited to
damages that are 'easily ascertainable.'"8 To prove damages, the victim need only present
evidence that affords a reasonable basis for establishing 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 of installation. The door was custom and had to be installed as
a single unit. The door was not significantly damaged before the incident. Youngblood
described cracks in the doorframe and damage to the doorjamb. The cracks in the
doorframe "were all separated."11 There was also a crack in the window connected to the
door next to the deadbolt. The front door handle was broken, and Youngblood's neighbor
had to clamp and to glue the door together to allow it to close.
Youngblood was uncertain how to describe the damage to the door itself. She
testified that there were "cracks in the door where 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).
7 jd at 966.
8 State v. Bennett, 63 Wn. App. 530, 535, 821 P.2d 499 (1991) (quoting
RCW 13.40.020(26)).
9 Id (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 their foot all the way through the solid core door.
Youngblood discussed repairing the door with her contractor, but the contractor indicated
the damage could not be repaired. Youngblood described the damage to the single unit
consisting of the door, doorframe, doorjamb, door handle and adjoining window. She
purchased an exact replica custom door from the same specialty mill workshop. She
testified to the cost of the custom replacement door unit.
We conclude sufficient evidence supports that the custom door, as well as the
doorframe, doorjamb, door handle, and window portion of the single door unit were
damaged. Butfor Ong's crime, the damage to the door unit would not have occurred,13
and Youngblood's testimony adequately established that replacement of the 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 for the proposition that a "causal
connection is not established simply because a victim submits proof of expenditures for
replacing property stolen or damaged by the person convicted." 99 Wn. App. 251, 257,
991 P.2d 1216 (2000). But here, Youngblood testified about the door's damage and
provided proof of its replacement cost, thereby establishing a causal connection between
the damage and the crime.