Cases | Redick v. State, 858 A.2d 947 (Del. 2004) | 2018
The defendant advertised on the Internet digital high-pass filters designed to bypass the billing cycle for digital cable box usage. The defendant pled guilty to use, possession with intent to distribute, or sale of fifty or more unlawful telecommunication and access devices and admitted to violation of his existing probation. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution to the Delaware Department of Justice, a cable company, and a public library. On appeal, the defendant claimed that: (1) the methodology used by the trial court in calculating restitution to the cable company was speculative, and there was insufficient evidence to justify the amount; (2) the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding restitution to the library and the justice department; and (3) the trial court did not properly consider the defendant’s ability to pay the restitution amount. The court held that: (1) the restitution award to the cable company was supported by evidence presented at the hearing and was the product of a logical deductive process. No actual loss could be determined because the unlawful devices sold by the defendant accomplished their intended purpose of successfully blocking the billing signal. When there is no method for calculating a precise amount of loss given the type of crime, a reasonable estimate of the victim’s loss can be awarded by the trial court; (2) the court vacated the awards to the library and justice department, as they were not victims, and the State conceded that the statute did not authorize restitution to them; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the determination that defendant pay restitution to the cable company. The defendant was a college graduate; he was not incarcerated; his current expenses were minimal; and he testified that he hoped to obtain better employment.