Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-132905, Matter of

• Decision Date: 16 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 1,JV-132905,CA-JV,1
• Citation: 186 Ariz. 607,925 P.2d 748
• Parties: In the Matter of the APPEAL IN MARICOPA COUNTY JUVENILE ACTION NO.95-0103.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 748

925 P.2d 748

186 Ariz. 607

In the Matter of the APPEAL IN MARICOPA COUNTY JUVENILE ACTION NO. JV-132905.

No. 1 CA-JV 95-0103.

Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department E.

July 16, 1996.

Review Denied Oct. 21, 1996.

[186 Ariz. 608] Richard Romley, Maricopa County Attorney by Diana Wilkes, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix, for Appellee.

Howard Grodman, Phoenix, for Appellant.

OPINION

THOMPSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order entered November 14, 1995, directing appellant (juvenile) to pay restitution in the amount of $500.00 for damages incurred subsequent to the theft of a vehicle owned by the victim. The sole issue is whether juvenile is liable for damages to victim's vehicle when he has pled guilty to the theft but denies causing the damages. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¹

On April 1, 1995, a petition was filed in juvenile court charging juvenile with the theft of victim's car. On July 3, 1995, juvenile admitted to the charge pursuant to a written plea agreement. As part of the plea, three prior charges were dismissed and juvenile agreed to pay up to $1,800.00 in restitution for "all matters admitted or dismissed" in the agreement. Victim submitted a Verified Victim Statement of Financial Loss on August 14, 1995, requesting $918.89 in restitution for damage to the vehicle.

At the ensuing restitution hearing, juvenile asserted that victim's car was already damaged when he came upon it abandoned on the side of the road, and that he had caused no additional damage to the vehicle. Juvenile admitted taking the car for two days, but surmised that the car had been damaged by "whoever stole it from [victim]" initially. The prosecution filed an offer of proof which indicated that juvenile's testimony was the only direct evidence as to the cause of damages to victim's car. The prosecution asserted, however, that juvenile's testimony lacked credibility and that, regardless, juvenile was liable for damages pursuant to his plea agreement.

In support of its argument that juvenile's statements were not credible, the prosecution pointed to information that initially juvenile had falsely denied ever having driven the stolen vehicle, that juvenile's mother observed him driving the vehicle and reported that he had put the car's California license plate in a trash can, and that a girlfriend stated she had dropped juvenile off at the approximate time and place of the car theft and told him not to steal the car.

On November 14, 1995, the court ordered juvenile to pay $500.00 in restitution to victim. The court based its decision on the offer of proof, victim's verified statement, juvenile's testimony, the submitted case law, and counsels' arguments. Juvenile timely appealed from the order.

DISCUSSION

Juvenile asserts that the court committed reversible error in ordering restitution when there was no definitive showing that his actions were causally related to the car's damages. Juvenile cites Matter of Juvenile Action No. JV-128676, 177 Ariz. 352, 868 P.2d 365 (App.1994), for the proposition that restitution to a victim is only appropriate when a causal connection between the victim's losses and the juvenile's criminal conduct is established by the evidence. In JV-128676, however, the juvenile appealing the restitution ordered was merely a passenger in a car he knew to have been stolen by the juvenile driving it; at no time was it inferred that the passenger-juvenile had been in control of the vehicle. Id. at 352, 868 P.2d at 365. We thus held that because the state had not established that the damage to the car was in any way attributable to the passenger's criminal trespass, the passenger-juvenile was not responsible...