State v. Burns
244 P.3d 988
Wash. Ct. App.2010Background
- Burns pled to multiple theft and forgery counts; restitution for charged crimes was set at sentencing at $8,923.25.
- The court ordered restitution for uncharged crimes to be determined later, and the State agreed to schedule a hearing within 180 days of sentencing.
- A restitution hearing regarding uncharged crimes was scheduled for 2008, but delayed; Burns obtained counsel and the hearing occurred May 7 to June 4, 2009.
- The June 4, 2009 order imposed an additional $73,237.40 restitution to All-Tech and $20,000 to Zurich Insurance, beyond the 180-day limit for determination.
- The State conceded Zurich restitution was not supported by evidence; Burns challenges the authority to set uncharged-crime restitution after the 180-day deadline.
- The appellate court reverses, holding the court had no authority to determine or modify the uncharged-crimes restitution after 180 days where not initially determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could determine restitution for uncharged crimes after 180 days | Burns argues the 180-day limit barred determination. | Burns contends modification authority allows post-deadline adjustment. | Yes; court exceeded statutory authority; 180 days limit applies. |
| Whether the Zurich restitution was properly supported by evidence | N/A (Burns disputes amount) | State contends evidence supports Zurich amount. | Zurich amount not supported by evidence; error in order. |
| Whether the 180-day deadline applies to determination versus modification under RCW 9.94A.753(4) | Uncharged-crimes restitution was not determined within 180 days. | State argues RCW 9.94A.753(4) allows modification; Gonzalez controls. | Modification not applicable; uncharged-crimes restitution was not determined within 180 days; error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kinneman, 122 Wn. App. 850 (2004) (burden of proof for restitution—preponderance of evidence; loss connection to crime)
- State v. Griffith, 164 Wash.2d 960 (2008) (substantial credible evidence required for restitution)
- State v. Hunsicker, 129 Wn.2d 554 (1996) (restoration of amount by preponderance; determination at sentencing or within 180 days)
- Gonzalez, 168 Wash.2d 256 (2010) (modification of restitution under RCW 9.94A.753(4) where ongoing costs exist; distinguishes ongoing medical expenses)
- State v. Davison, 116 Wash.2d 917 (1991) (restitution power is statutory, not inherent; standard de novo)