Howard v. State
Decision Date | 30 September 1993 |
Citation | 639 So.2d 555 |
Parties | Christopher E. HOWARD v. STATE. CR 92-868. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Glenn L. Davidson, Mobile, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Gregory O. Griffin, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Christopher E. Howard, pleaded guilty to arson in the second degree and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, five of which were suspended. The appellant's actions resulted in the destruction of the mobile home and all the belongings of the victim, Debra Burrell, and those of her three young daughters. After a hearing, the appellant was ordered to pay $29,945 in restitution to the victim at a rate of $75 per week. This appeal is from the order of restitution.
The appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $29,945.00 because he argues "the trial court had no viable evidence [from] which it could determine a [fair] market value for the property lost." Appellant's brief at 13. The appellant requests that this matter "be remanded back to the trial court for another restitution hearing so that additional evidence on the fair market value of the lost property may be received." Appellant's brief at 15. We find this contention to be without merit and we deny the request.
This issue has not been preserved for review.
Eddins v. State, 501 So.2d 574, 578 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). See also Briggs v. State, 549 So.2d 155, 161 (Ala.Cr.App.1989).
Furthermore, even had the issue been preserved for review, the substance of the appellant's contention on appeal is without merit. Perpetrators of criminal activity or conduct are to "be required to fully compensate all victims ... for any pecuniary loss, damage or injury as a direct or indirect result thereof," Ala.Code 1975, § 15-18-65, when the "defendant's criminal act was the proximate cause of the victim's injury.... and a reasonable person could have foreseen or anticipated that the injury might occur as a natural consequence of the action." Richardson v. State, 603 So.2d 1132, 1133 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).
In this case, the circuit court heard testimony from both sides regarding the value of the victim's destroyed property and stated that: R. 112. After taking the matter under submission, the trial court issued a written order in which it concluded that "the victim, Debbie Howard, is entitled to restitution in the amount of $29,945.00." C.R. 2.
" Richardson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Theodorou v. State ).
...Additionally, we note that the trial court has wide discretion in determining the amount of restitution. Howard v. State, 639 So.2d 555, 556 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (“ ‘ “The particular amount of restitution is a matter which must of necessity be left almost totally to the discretion of the tri......
-
Love v. State
...to render the judgments or to impose the sentences. See, e.g., D.W.L. v. State, 821 So.2d 246, 249 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Howard v. State, 639 So.2d 555, 555-56 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); and Briggs v. State, 549 So.2d 155, 160-61 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (all recognizing that a challenge to the amount ......