State v. Skiles
| Decision Date | 26 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 704 P.2d 283,146 Ariz. 153 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Gerald Keith SKILES, Appellant. 3680. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Defendant was indicted on one count of leaving the scene of an accident. On December 5, 1983, defendant was driving a vehicle which was struck by a motorcycle. The motorcyclist suffered severe injuries. The defendant fled on foot. The indictment states, in part, that defendant "failed to remain at the scene of said accident and render aid as required in A.R.S. § 28-663, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 28-661,...."
Defendant pled guilty, and at the change of plea hearing the trial court established that defendant (1) had been operating the vehicle (2) was involved in an accident which (3) resulted in injuries to another person and that, after the accident (4) defendant "didn't stay there to check out and see if [he] needed to render aid or assistance." This provided the factual basis for accepting the plea.
The presentence report noted that defendant denied responsibility for causing the accident and concluded that the defendant lacked remorse for his actions. At the sentencing hearing, defendant's lawyer objected to this reference. He stated that defendant was remorseful for leaving the scene of the accident (the crime for which he had pled guilty) but argued that his fleeing the scene was not probative of whether or not defendant had caused the accident. The trial court sentenced defendant to the presumptive term of 1.5 years in prison and ordered him to pay a fine of "$3,000 which fine shall be treated as restitution to the victim." Defendant appeals only from that portion of the sentence ordering restitution.
Defendant's position on appeal is that the sentence imposing a fine in the nature of restitution is inappropriate because there was no showing that he was at fault in the accident. We agree.
The trial judge explicitly avoided any determination of fault. He stated that the "offense is the fact that after the accident ... he didn't stay there as required by statute." The statute, A.R.S. § 28-661, requires a driver to stop at the scene of the accident and remain there until the requirements of A.R.S. § 28-663 have been fulfilled. Under § 28-663, the driver must give certain information to the person injured and render "reasonable assistance" to the injured person. In the case at bench it is clear that defendant violated § 28-661. There are no facts, however, which establish his fault for the accident nor that the motorcyclist suffered any aggravation to his injuries by defendant's criminal act in fleeing the scene.
Under these circumstances, the case law is clear and an order of restitution is not warranted. Redewill v. Superior Court, 43...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steenblik v. Lichfield
... ... Unknown to Steenblik, Zephor's corporate authority had been suspended by the State of Utah in November 1987 ... In January 1988, Rasmussen invited Steenblik to his office. Outside the building stood a sign ... ...
-
State v. Shafer
...to pay restitution for injuries sustained as a result of the accident. Id. at 578 (citations omitted). See also State v. Skiles, 146 Ariz. 153, 704 P.2d 283, 284 (Ct.App.1985); Commonwealth v. Cooper, 319 Pa.Super. 351, 466 A.2d 195, 196-97 (1983); State v. Hartwell, 38 Wash.App. 135, 684 P......
-
State v. Phillips
...for the accident that caused the injury. 3 See State v. Whitney, 151 Ariz. 113, 726 P.2d 210 (App.1985); State v. Skiles, 146 Ariz. 153, 154, 704 P.2d 283, 284 (App.1985) (court could not require restitution of a defendant who pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident because there......
-
State v. Whitney, 1
...The court vacated the sentence on that ground. Division Two of this court has reached a similar conclusion. See State v. Skiles, 146 Ariz. 153, 704 P.2d 283 (App.1985). Here, appellant's alleged negligence in causing the traffic accident involving Del Rio, a half-hour to an hour after the t......