State v. Cody Michael Phelps

Cody Phelps pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (case consolidated) and later pled guilty to burglary for stealing silver bars and Kennedy half-dollar coins from a victim’s home in July 2015.
One silver bar and 60 of the half-dollar coins were recovered; the victim testified he had purchased the remaining silver as an investment in Dec 2013–Jan 2014.
The State introduced invoices showing the victim paid $245.21 per silver bar (18 bars = $4,413.78) and $12.42 per half-dollar (700 coins = $8,694.00), totaling $13,107.78; no evidence was introduced of silver’s market value on the July 2015 theft date or replacement cost.
The district court sentenced Phelps to a unified ten-year term (two years determinate) for burglary, ordered concurrent execution of an earlier methamphetamine sentence, and awarded $13,107.78 in restitution based on the purchase prices.
Phelps objected, arguing restitution must be based on market value at the time/place of the crime (or replacement cost) and that the State failed to prove that value; the court scheduled a restitution hearing but relied on the purchase invoices and victim testimony.
On appeal the Idaho Court of Appeals reversed the restitution award and the burglary sentence (to be reconsidered), finding the State failed to meet its burden to prove restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issue	State's Argument	Phelps's Argument	Held
Whether restitution amount was proven by a preponderance of the evidence	Purchase price invoices reflect the victim’s loss and are a reasonable proxy for value	Restitution must be based on market value at time/place of crime or replacement cost; State offered no such evidence	Reversed: State failed to prove market value or replacement cost; purchase price alone insufficient
Whether sentence was affected by erroneous restitution	Restitution award was proper; sentence justified	Sentence tied to restitution amount (court increased indeterminate term to allow victim recovery) and thus was impacted by error	Reversed and remanded for resentencing so court can reconsider sentence without the erroneous restitution basis

State v. Richmond, 137 Idaho 35, 43 P.3d 794 (Ct. App. 2002) (restitution guided by statute and policy favoring full compensation)
State v. Bybee, 115 Idaho 541, 768 P.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1989) (discretionary nature of restitution awards)
State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331 (1989) (appellate review of discretionary decisions requires multi-tiered inquiry)
State v. Smith, 144 Idaho 687, 169 P.3d 275 (Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishing market value and cost of replacement for restitution)
State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of sentences)
State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992) (appellant bears burden to show sentence is unreasonable to establish abuse of discretion)
State v. Nice, 103 Idaho 89, 645 P.2d 323 (1982) (sentence may be an abuse of discretion if unreasonable on the facts)