822 S.E.2d 679
Va. Ct. App.2019Background
- Brenda Fleisher pled no contest to felony unauthorized use of a motor vehicle after taking a victim’s Hyundai (with the victim’s purse and keys inside) and driving off; other charges were nolle prossed under the plea agreement.
- The Hyundai was recovered days later, abandoned and unlocked; the victim’s purse, $300 cash, and keys (including keys to a separate Toyota RAV4) were never recovered.
- The plea agreement reserved restitution to be determined by the court; Fleisher conceded $358 as the cost to replace the Hyundai key.
- The Commonwealth introduced dealer estimates: $756 to replace Hyundai key and lock cylinder (including labor/tax) and $2,367 to replace Toyota keys, door cylinders, and reprogram the vehicle computer; replacement of only the Toyota key (without reprogramming) would cost much less.
- The trial court ordered total restitution of $3,423 (the $300 cash, $756 for the Hyundai, and $2,367 for the Toyota) reasoning the victim’s pre-crime security had been compromised and needed restoration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fleisher) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution may include lock-and-key replacement and Toyota computer reprogramming | Restitution for changing locks is impermissible because locks were neither damaged nor lost; only the key was lost so only key replacement cost should be awarded | Taking the car (and removing keys) directly caused the victim to lose secure control of her vehicles; changing locks restores security and is a direct, not remote, loss caused by the offense | Court affirmed: restitution for replacing locks and reprogramming was permitted as a loss directly caused by the offense and necessary to make the victim whole |
Key Cases Cited
- Burriesci v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 50 (Va. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate review of sentencing abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555 (Va. 2016) (discretionary sentencing may reflect reasonable jurists’ differing conclusions)
- Howell v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 737 (Va. 2007) (restitution limited to costs "directly caused by the offense," holding security-system installation was too remote)
- Shelton v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2016) (restitution affirmed where defendant’s conduct directly caused victim’s losses; remoteness not present)
- Sauder v. Ferguson, 289 Va. 449 (Va. 2015) (sentencing court has a range of choice; reversal only if decision influenced by legal error)