State v. Richmond, 43 P.3d 794 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002)

Cases | State v. Richmond, 43 P.3d 794 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002) | 2018

The defendant vandalized farm equipment and fields. The jury acquitted him of felony malicious injury to property but found him guilty of the lesser-included misdemeanor offense. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution in the amounts of $8,330 to the victim and $6,498.54 to the Farm Bureau Insurance as a condition of probation. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court lacked authority to order restitution in excess of $1,000 for property damage where he was convicted only of misdemeanor malicious injury to property. Noting that the defendant failed to provide a record of restitution evidentiary hearings or documentation that formed the basis of the trial court’s order, the appellate court presumed that the trial court did not err in determining that the victims suffered economic damages. The court further held that the trial court correctly perceived the restitution award as one of discretion and acted consistently with legal standards in ordering an amount in excess of $1,000. The restitution statute clearly intended for full restitution upon economic loss from criminal conduct.