Felicity Burris v. State, 01-14-00900-CR

Appellant Felicity Burris pleaded no contest to arson and received five years’ deferred adjudication with community supervision. The trial court ordered restitution as a condition of supervision.
At a restitution hearing the complainant’s son, James Zoe, testified the building was catastrophically destroyed, gutted by fire, and exterior walls were cracked and unusable.
The complainant incurred immediate out-of-pocket expenses: debris cleanup ($2,200), securing the building ($1,000), locks ($200), and boarding ($1,450); the Houston Police Department’s securing costs ($8,855) were paid by insurer and deducted from proceeds.
A demolition estimate from Cherry Demolition for tearing down the remaining exterior walls, removing debris, and clearing the lot was $12,146; demolition had not yet been performed but James testified it would be required “without a doubt.”
The insurance company paid $241,145 after paying HPD directly; the complainant owed taxes on over $68,000 of proceeds because the structure was a total loss.
The trial court ordered total restitution of $25,851, including the $12,146 demolition estimate. Appellant appealed the inclusion of the demolition cost.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by ordering $12,146 restitution for demolition of a not-yet-demolished structure	Burris: future demolition cost had not occurred, so it was not a loss; inclusion unjustly enriched complainant	State: estimate and testimony establish that demolition was necessary and the cost was supported by the record; restitution may include future/anticipated costs when supported	Court upheld trial court’s order (state argues no abuse of discretion)
Whether restitution amount must be factually supported	Burris: insufficient factual basis for future cost	State: demolition estimate and witness testimony constitute factual support; State bears burden to show loss amount	Court concluded record supported demolition cost
Whether restitution must be limited to direct losses from the offense	Burris: inclusion of future costs exceeds direct loss	State: demolition is a direct consequence of arson and thus proper restitution	Court treated demolition as direct consequence and proper restitution
Whether order was just given appellant’s ability to pay and victim recovery	Burris: order may be excessive given appellant’s finances	State: trial court considered appellant’s financial affidavits; restitution ordered was modest relative to total loss	Court found restitution amount just and within discretion

Campbell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (restitution must be just, factually supported, and tied to the offense)
Drilling v. State, 134 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004) (trial court has broad discretion on restitution; review is for abuse of discretion)
Gonzalez v. State, 117 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard articulated)
Cartwright v. State, 605 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (restitution review standard)
Lemos v. State, 27 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) (upholding restitution for future financial losses when record supports them)