State v. Hunziker, 56 P.3d 202 (Kan. 2002)

Cases | State v. Hunziker, 56 P.3d 202 (Kan. 2002) | 2018

The defendant pled guilty to criminal damage to property and misdemeanor theft. The defendant was ordered to pay restitution. On appeal, the defendant claimed that: (1) the trial court erred by requiring him to pay a total restitution amount in excess of the market value of the damaged property; (2) the trial court ordered him to pay restitution for attorney fees incurred by the victim in retaining private counsel to calculate damages; and (3) the trial court erred by ordering an unworkable restitution payment plan. The supreme court held that: (1) restitution for touch-up paint for the victim’s damaged equipment was in excess of the fair market value of the equipment and thus exceeded the total loss incurred by the victim; (2) the order allowing attorney fees was reversed because the victim’s retention of an attorney was not a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct; and (3) the appellate court correctly determined that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the restitution plan for appeal.