Roberts v. State
Decision Date | 22 November 2002 |
Citation | 863 So.2d 1149 |
Parties | Jason Larry ROBERTS v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Steven Speakman, Auburn, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Robin Blevins, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1020708.
Jason Larry Roberts appeals an order of the circuit court directing him to pay $12,166.25 in restitution to the parents of Andrea Michelle Danford. Roberts was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, a violation of § 13A-6-4, Ala.Code 1975, for the shooting death of Ms. Danford.1 The circuit court sentenced Roberts to one year in prison, imposed a $2,000 fine, and ordered him to pay restitution to Ms. Danford's parents (hereinafter "the parents") for expenses they had incurred in cleaning their daughter's automobile ($825) and for various funeral and funeral-related expenses ($11,341.25).
Roberts argues that the parents were not entitled to any restitution because they accepted a $100,000 payment from his insurance carrier in settlement of a potential wrongful-death action, see § 6-5-410, Ala. Code 1975, before the restitution hearing and they had agreed to release all of their claims against him. The circuit court rejected this argument, concluding that the release in the civil case was not a defense to restitution in the criminal case and that no portion of the settlement payment could be attributed to, and therefore credited against, the parents' pecuniary damages that were proven at the restitution hearing. For the following reasons, we agree with the circuit court's conclusion that a previous settlement in a civil case does not necessarily release a defendant from his or her obligation to pay restitution. We also conclude that under the particular circumstances of this case, a setoff of the civil settlement against the pecuniary damages established by the parents at the restitution hearing was not appropriate. Therefore, we affirm the restitution order.
(Supp. C. 9.)
Roberts does not appeal his conviction. The dispositive issues on appeal concern the legal effect of the civil settlement and the release of the parents' civil-damages claim. Roberts maintains that the circuit court erred in ordering any restitution. Specifically, he argues that, because his insurance carrier paid the parents an amount substantially in excess of what they actually claimed in expenses incurred in connection with their daughter's death, the parents suffered no pecuniary loss for which restitution could be made. Stated differently, Roberts argues that the circuit court should have credited the insurance proceeds against the parents' expense claims and, furthermore, that the release barred the court from ordering any restitution. The State contends that the civil settlement and the accompanying release had no effect on the court's statutory authority to order the restitution as part of Roberts's sentence.
The right of crime victims to receive restitution is set forth in the Restitution to Victims of Crimes Act, § 15-18-65 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the Act"). Several sections of the Act are pertinent to our discussion of the issues presented here. Section 15-18-65, Ala.Code 1975, states:
"Pecuniary damages" is defined in § 15-18-66(2), Ala.Code 1975, as follows:
"All special damages which a person shall recover against the defendant in a civil action arising out of the facts or events constituting the defendant's criminal activities; the term shall include, but not be limited to the money or other equivalent of property taken, broken, destroyed, or otherwise used or harmed and losses such as travel, medical, dental or burial expenses and wages including but not limited to wages lost as a result of court appearances."
"Victim" is defined in § 15-18-66(4), Ala. Code 1975, as:
Section 15-18-75, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
Section 15-18-78, Ala.Code 1975, states:
The legislative purpose underlying the Act, as evidenced by the plain language of § 15-18-65, was to fully compensate victims of crime for "any pecuniary loss, damage or injury" suffered as a direct or indirect result of a criminal act. See Butler v. State, 608 So.2d 773 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), and Gladden v. State, 644 So.2d 1267 (Ala. Crim.App.1993). In Ex parte Clare, 456 So.2d 357, 358 (Ala.1984), the Alabama Supreme Court stated:
Although the purpose of restitution is to effectuate the compensation of a crime victim and although a restitution order has all the force and effect of a final judgment in a civil action in Alabama, it is nonetheless clear that the Legislature intended that restitution remain an integral part of traditional criminal sentencing. Thus, this Court has held that the Legislature, in providing for civil enforcement of a restitution order, did not intend to make restitution a civil action. Restitution is not subject to the requirements of a civil adjudication merely because it is enforceable in the same manner as a civil judgment. See Rice v. State, 491 So.2d 1049 (Ala.Crim. App.1986).
Furthermore, although compensation to the victim may have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Slusser v. Commonwealth
...obligation by the amount paid to the victim from collateral sources, see, e.g. , 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(B) ; Roberts v. State , 863 So. 2d 1149, 1154 n.2 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) ; Dorris v. State , 656 P.2d 578, 583-84 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982) ; People v. Birkett , 21 Cal.4th 226, 87 Cal.Rptr.......
-
Jones v. Commonwealth, 2010–SC–000328–MR.
...Gibney, 519 F.3d 301 (6th Cir.2008) citing United States v. Vandeberg, 201 F.3d 805, 814 (6th Cir.2000); Alabama, Roberts v. State, 863 So.2d 1149, 1155 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); Arizona, State v. W., 173 Ariz. 602, 845 P.2d 1097, 1104 (Ct.App.1992); Colorado, People v. Shepard, 989 P.2d 183, 18......
-
Dixon v. State
...clear that the Legislature intended that restitution remain an integral part of traditional criminal sentencing.' Roberts v. State, 863 So.2d 1149, 1153 (Ala.Crim. App.2002). Well-established law holds that a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify a sentence for 30 days after the senten......
-
Grace v. State
...hearing more than 30 days after the date of sentencing." We also observed in Redmon, quoting in part from Roberts v. State, 863 So.2d 1149, 1155 (Ala. Crim.App.2002), that restitution was mandatory and that the trial court is "`statutorily obligated'" to determine restitution "to fully comp......