State v. Raleigh, 19146-2-I
| Decision Date | 08 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 19146-2-I,19146-2-I |
| Citation | 50 Wn.App. 248,748 P.2d 267 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Aaron Samuel RALEIGH, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Scott J. Engelhard, Appellate Defender, Seattle, for Aaron Samuel raleigh.
Sally Stanfield, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for State of Wash.
Aaron S. Raleigh appeals the order of restitution entered upon his conviction following a guilty plea to second degree burglary.
On February 14, 1986, Raleigh was charged by information with the crime of burglary in the second degree, as follows:
That the defendants Aaron Samuel Raleigh and Robert Justine Paul Hart, and each of them, together with others, in King County, Washington, during a period of time intervening between July 14, 1985 through July 19, 1985, did enter and remain unlawfully in a building, St. Madeline [sic] Sophie's Catholic Church, located at 4400--130th Place S.E., in said county and state, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, to-wit: theft ...
Raleigh's co-defendant, Hart, was also charged by information with a second count, burglary in the second degree. The information alleged that Hart, "together with others", during a period between July 20 and July 21 burglarized another Bellevue church, St. Margaret's.
Raleigh pled guilty to the charge of burglary in the second degree. In his statement on plea of guilty, Raleigh stated: Both Raleigh and Hart were ordered to make restitution in the amount of $9,179.01. (Hart's restitution order was entered on May 2, 1986, several weeks before the order in Raleigh's case.) The order setting restitution states: No evidence was presented at the sentencing hearing regarding the amount of restitution. The figure was derived from the order of restitution already entered against co-defendant, Hart. (Apparently, the reference to St. Margaret's is also copied from Hart's restitution order, as the record does not otherwise indicate that Raleigh was involved in that burglary.) Raleigh's counsel asked the court to set a restitution hearing to determine the amount that could be attributed to Raleigh. Instead of granting the defense request, the court stated: "Move against it if there is some problem."
Raleigh then filed a motion to reconsider. At the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, defense counsel presented an insurance statement of loss, including an inventory of the items stolen from St. Madeleine Sophie's Church. On the inventory next to the items stolen are notations of days of the week, apparently indicating those days on which the various items were stolen. The date of loss on the statement of loss is listed as "7/14, 15, 16, 18/85-theft." Raleigh argued that because there were four incidents of burglary during the time period in which his count was charged and because he had pled guilty to only one incident--breaking into the church and stealing beer--the State must prove which portion of the loss is attributable to Raleigh. Although his guilty plea statement does not specify a date, Raleigh contended that he entered the church only on July 14 and that the statement of loss stated that on Sunday only beer in the amount of $89 was stolen. The defense contended that Raleigh should be ordered to pay a total of $112.92 representing the amount of pop and beer stolen. The prosecutor stated to the court:
We charged it over one count alleging several days to give all the defendants the benefit of not having a lot of counts and to simplify there is quite obviously in the situation a lot of intrusions going on into a church building and various items taken at various times. We are not going to be able to know who went in what day and who took what what day.
The prosecutor also argued that the amount had already been determined by the court in the sentencing of Hart and that it was a joint and several obligation. The court ruled:
These applications are joint and several. There were so many people involved, but I would assume, as in a civil case, you can specify what part is yours. The burden on you to demonstrate it. I don't think you have. I can review it at a later time. I think you better make some payments.
The issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering Raleigh to pay restitution for the total amount of damages sustained by the church in the course of several burglaries during the time period in which the count was charged.
Raleigh contends he was denied due process of law by the entry of the restitution order without the presentation of evidence by the State on the amount of damage or loss resulting from his actions. He further contends that he was erroneously ordered to pay restitution for other burglaries which occurred within the same period as the charged burglary. We agree that the order was improper, and therefore vacate the order and remand for a restitution hearing.
RCW 9.94A.142, the restitution statute applicable to offenses committed after July 1, 1985, provides:
(1) When restitution is ordered, the court shall determine the amount of restitution due at the sentencing hearing or within sixty days and shall set the terms and conditions under which the defendant shall make restitution. Restitution ordered by a court pursuant to a criminal conviction shall be based on easily ascertainable damages for injury to or loss of property.... The amount of restitution shall not exceed double the amount of the offender's gain or the victim's loss from the commission of the crime....
(2) Restitution shall be ordered whenever the offender is convicted of an offense which results in injury to any person or damage to or loss of property unless extraordinary circumstances exist which make restitution inappropriate in the court's judgment and the court sets forth such circumstances in the record.
Proof of loss for imposing restitution requires evidence sufficient to afford a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renfro v. State
...reasonable basis for estimating the loss, a standard similar to that required to prove damages in a tort action." State v. Raleigh, 50 Wash.App. 248, 748 P.2d 267, 269 (1988). In White v. State, 773 P.2d 211, 217 (Alaska App.1989), the court observed that, in accord with the argument made b......
-
State v. Woods, 20405-3-II
...to make such restitution as part of the plea bargain process." Miszak, 69 Wash.App. at 429, 848 P.2d 1329 (citing State v. Raleigh, 50 Wash.App. 248, 252, 748 P.2d 267, review denied, 110 Wash.2d 1017 In September 1995, Woods was charged with and pleaded guilty to possession of stolen prope......
-
State v. Soderholm
...of loss for imposing restitution requires evidence sufficient to afford a reasonable basis for estimating a loss, see State v. Raleigh, 50 Wash.App. 248, 252, 748 P.2d 267, review denied, 110 Wash.2d 1017 (1988), and the State provided such evidence Judgment affirmed. PEKELIS and KENNEDY, J......
-
State v. Garrison, No. 30769-3-II (WA 1/19/2005)
...such restitution as part of the plea bargain process. Former RCW 9.94A.753(5);1 Woods, 90 Wn. App. at 908; see also State v. Raleigh, 50 Wn. App. 248, 253, 748 P.2d 267 (`Before entering a plea of guilty, the defendant must be advised of all the direct consequences of his plea, including th......