Solis v. State
2010 WY 165
| Wyo. | 2010Background
- Solis pled guilty to felony larceny and was ordered to pay restitution to the victim totaling $2,328.31.
- The restitution amount was determined after a PSI identified $2,328.31 but lacked supporting details.
- At sentencing, the court deferred restitution to a later hearing and then sentenced Solis per the plea agreement.
- The district court ultimately ordered $2,328.31 in restitution (merchandise $1,968.31 plus $360 for a new sales associate).
- Solis argued the restitution should reflect actual pecuniary damages, specifically the sale price of $1,011.95, not the full retail value.
- This appeal challenges the amount of restitution, not the court’s authority to restore restitution generally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of pecuniary damages for restitution | Solis—the full marked/listed price (retail) is the damages. | State seeks full retail value as damages. | Restitution must reflect actual pecuniary damages, i.e., sale price ($1,011.95), not full retail price. |
| Applicability of § 1-1-127 to set restitution amount | § 1-1-127 supports recovery of full marked price plus penalties. | § 1-1-127 would justify punitive damages; not recoverable as restitution. | § 1-1-127 applies but cannot justify full retail or penalties as restitution; damages are the sale price. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. State, 141 P.3d 101 (Wy. 2006) (restitution requires statutory basis and reasonable pecuniary damages)
- Alcaraz v. State, 44 P.3d 68 (Wy. 2002) (definition and scope of pecuniary damages in restitution)
- Lieberman v. Mossbrook, 208 P.3d 1296 (Wy. 2009) (measure of damages in conversion as fair market value at time of loss)
- Grommet v. Newman, 220 P.3d 795 (Wy. 2009) (defines fair market value for conversion damages)
- Brown v. State, 70 P.3d 238 (Wy. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for restitution amounts)