State Of Washington v. Christopher John Pletenik ( 2016 )

LA')\u u i
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 73051-7-1
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
v.
CHRISTOPHER JOHN PLETENIK, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: March 14, 2016
Becker, J. — The issue in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to
support an order of restitution. We affirm.
On April 24, 2014, appellant Christopher Pletenik unlawfully entered an
upscale clothing store in Seattle after hours. He stole store merchandise and
items from the store's employee lockers. Many expensive items were ruined by
becoming soaked with blood when Pletenik cut his hand smashing into a glass
display case for watches. Pletenik pleaded guilty to burglary in the second
degree and identity theft in the second degree.
On January 12, 2015, the trial court held a hearing to determine
restitution. The State provided documentation of the retail value of the
merchandise stolen and damaged by Pletenik, among other itemized claims.
According to Pletenik's brief on appeal, the total in this category was $4,490.
The State asked the court to order restitution of the full retail value of the
No. 73051-7-1/2
merchandise. The court decided that using the store's replacement cost as a
measure of value would be more fair. There was no evidence in the record of the
replacement cost. The court estimated the replacement cost at 25 percent of the
retail value: "I think it's unreasonable to give the store what they would have sold
it at. The question is how can they replace it? They replace it by their costs. You
haven't given me their costs. I know retail has a large markup, so I'm saying 25
percent of these costs would be reasonable." Pletenik objected that the number
calculated in this manner was speculative. He appeals on the same basis.
A Washington court's authority to order restitution is derived solely from
statute. State v. Gonzalez. 168 Wash. 2d 256, 262, 226 P.3d 131, cert, denied. 562
U.S. 928 (2010). Restitution may be ordered whenever the offender is convicted
of an offense which results in damage to or loss of property. RCW 9.94A.753.
Restitution ordered by a court pursuant to a criminal conviction shall be
based on "easily ascertainable damages" for injury to or loss of property. RCW
9.94A.753(3). The amount of harm or loss need not be established with specific
accuracy. State v. Kinneman. 155 Wash. 2d 272, 285, 119 P.3d 350 (2005).
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. Kinneman, 155 Wash. 2d at 285.
The statute "does not say that the restitution ordered must be equivalent
to the injury, damage or loss, either as a minimum or a maximum." Kinneman,
155 Wash. 2d at 282. The statute "allows the judge considerable discretion in
determining restitution, which ranges from none (in some extraordinary
No. 73051-7-1/3
circumstances) up to double the offender's gain or the victim's loss." Kinneman.
155 Wash. 2d at 282. We will find abuse of that discretion only where its exercise is
manifestly unreasonable, or where it is exercised on untenable grounds or for
untenable reasons. State v. Pollard. 66 Wash. App. 779, 785, 834 P.2d 51. review
denied. 120 Wash. 2d 1015 (1992).
The documentation provided the trial court with sufficient evidence to
ascertain the retail value of the lost and damaged items. It was not unreasonable
for the court to decide that restitution would be too high if set in that amount. The
trial court acted within its broad discretion by reducing the amount requested by
the store to account for the reality of the markup between cost and retail price.
The 25 percent estimate was not unreasonable. We find no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
^ecSCe*StK
WE CONCUR:
yflr^r/fl <~j C^X \tQAAN$k.({