State v. Cheeney, 160 P.3d 451 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007)

Cases | State v. Cheeney, 160 P.3d 451 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) | 2018

The defendant pled guilty to grand theft after embezzling money from her employer, a doctor’s office. The defendant would go to a Wells Fargo bank and deposit all the checks for the office, except one, which she would ask for in cash before pocketing the cash. She was sentenced to prison time and was ordered to pay restitution: $48,089.55 to the doctor, $157,500 to Wells Fargo, and $15,000 to Stuart Allen, a collection agency. Wells Fargo had settled with the victim for $157,500 and Safeco Insurance Company paid the victim $15,000 for his loss; Stuart Allen then pursued the defendant on behalf of the insurance company to regain $15,000. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in ordering restitution to the bank and the collection agency. After noting that “the definition of victim [includes] any person or entity who suffers economic loss because such a person or entity has made payments to or on behalf of a directly-injured victim pursuant to a contract,” the court of appeals held that the trial court erred in ordering restitution to the bank and the collection agency because there was no evidence that they suffered an economic loss pursuant to a contractual agreement with the victim. However, because there was no contractual relationship to divert restitution from the doctor, the trial court was statutorily authorized to order the defendant to pay the doctor restitution for the entire amount of the economic loss the defendant stipulated to have caused, $220,589.55. The restitution order was vacated as to the bank and collection agency, and the trial court was ordered to amend the order of restitution to the victim to equal the full amount of economic loss suffered.