People v. Miller, 90CA1955
| Decision Date | 05 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90CA1955,90CA1955 |
| Citation | 830 P.2d 1092 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharilynn Kae MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Catherine P. Adkisson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, State Public Defender, Kristin Giovanini, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Opinion by Judge ROTHENBERG.
Defendant, Sharilynn Kae Miller, appeals the judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and misdemeanor theft. She also appeals the trial court's order denying her motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Crim.P. 35(a). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.
While shopping at a discount store, Miller was seen placing four computer games in her son's shorts. Without paying for the games, her son left the store, placed the games in the car, and then returned to the store. Miller was then arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and theft.
Miller first contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She asserts that her eight-year-old son was not charged with theft because a child under the age of ten cannot be charged and convicted of any offense. Section 18-1-801, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Thus, according to Miller, since it was impossible for her son to violate any state law, she cannot be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. We disagree.
Section 18-6-701(1), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.) provides:
Any person who induces, aids, or encourages a child to violate any federal or state law, municipal or county ordinance, or court order commits contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
"Child" means a person under eighteen years of age. Section 19-1-103(4), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.).
Our primary task in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. In order reasonably to effectuate the legislative intent, a statute must be read and considered as a whole. Words and phrases should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. People v. District Court, 713 P.2d 918 (Colo.1986).
Here, the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. The General Assembly is concerned with adults who encourage children under eighteen to commit crimes. The statute does not require that the minor be charged or convicted of a crime nor does it require the minor to be over the age of ten.
Further, Miller's reliance on § 18-1-801 is misplaced. Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. Rather, in enacting § 18-1-801, the General Assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts. It did not determine that such persons could not commit the acts themselves. Cf. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). We therefore conclude that even though Miller's son was only eight years old at the time of her offense, Miller could be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Miller next contends that the trial court erred by imposing restitution of $781.20 for her son's counseling sessions.
Initially, Miller argues that her son was not a "victim" of her criminal conduct. We disagree.
Payment of restitution is authorized only as to the victim of a defendant's conduct and only for the actual pecuniary damage the victim sustained as the direct result of the defendant's conduct. People v. Borquez, 814 P.2d 382 (Colo.1991); §§ 16-11-204.5(1) and (4), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A).
We conclude that, here, Miller's son is the victim of the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The evidence showed that before they left home, Miller had her son put computer games down his shorts "to see if four of them would fit." Then at the store, her son picked up the computer games, and Miller placed them in his shorts.
According to the evidence and the victim impact statement, Miller's son sustained psychological trauma caused by her conduct which required counseling. We therefore hold that he was a "party immediately and directly aggrieved by a defendant" who was convicted of a crime and who was granted probation. Section 16-11-204.5(4).
Miller also claims that she was denied a meaningful opportunity to contest the restitution order and that the amount of restitution was not attributable to her conduct. Again, we disagree.
A defendant has the right to be heard concerning matters in the presentence report or victim impact statement which she believes to be untrue. This includes the amount of restitution. However, if the defendant fails to show that the information is inaccurate or untrue, the trial court is entitled to rely upon the report or statement as submitted. Wolford v. People, 178 Colo. 203, 496 P.2d 1011 (1972). Additionally, a defendant waives her objection to the restitution amount by failing to go forward with evidence which would place that amount in issue when she is offered the opportunity to do so. People v. Powell, 748 P.2d 1355 (Colo.App.1987).
Here, the district attorney received the victim impact statement the night before the sentencing hearing, and Miller's counsel received it at the hearing rather than 72 hours before sentencing as required. See People v. Johnson, 780 P.2d 504 (Colo.1989) ().
Although the better practice would have been for the court to have inquired further into the restitution issue, we conclude that Miller's failure to object or to request a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Butcher
...given the opportunity to do so." People v. Martinez , 166 P.3d 223, 224 (Colo. App. 2007) (emphasis added); see also People v. Miller , 830 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Colo. App. 1991) (same). While this question is closer, we decline to apply waiver because doing so would go beyond the rationale of M......
-
People v. A.V. (In re Interest of A.V.)
...evidence of the estimated expenses, A.V. could have rebutted the estimate by offering evidence of its inaccuracy. People v. Miller , 830 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Colo. App. 1991) ("[I]f the defendant fails to show that the information is inaccurate or untrue, the trial court is entitled to rely upo......
-
People v. Mata, 00CA0923.
...order specifying the amount. Thus, defendant had no opportunity to controvert the victim's claimed monetary damages. Cf. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo.App.1991)(defendant waived right to contest restitution by failing to object when presented with late presentence report); People v.......
-
People v. Rivera
...conduct). Counseling and mental health costs are considered medical expenses under the restitution statute. See People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, 1094–95 (Colo.App.1991) (where defendant's act caused psychological harm to child, restitution award for counseling was appropriate, but facts did......
-
ARTICLE 6
...charged with or convicted of a crime or whether the minor was old enough to be charged with or convicted of a crime. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1991). This is a criminal statute. Miller v. People in Interest of Edwin, 102 Colo. 259, 78 P.2d 624 (1938). The statute does not ......
-
ARTICLE 6 OFFENSES INVOLVING THE FAMILY RELATIONS
...charged with or convicted of a crime or whether the minor was old enough to be charged with or convicted of a crime. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1991). This is a criminal statute. Miller v. People in Interest of Edwin, 102 Colo. 259, 78 P.2d 624 (1938). The statute does not ......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.8 • RESTITUTION
...to the restitution amount by failing to go forward with evidence which would place that amount in issue . . . ." People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Colo. App. 1991) (defense counsel received the sentencing report the morning of the sentencing and did not object to the amount of restitut......
-
Colorado Felony Sentencing: Law and Practice
...provided by Drug Enforcement Administration appropriate subject for restitution). 135. Phillips, supra, note 128. 136. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1991). 137. CRS §§ 17-2-201(5)(c)(I) and 16-11-102(4). 138. CRS § 16-11-204.6. CRS § 16-11-101.7 also provides that a crime stop......