State v. Kristi L. Hurles, 349 P.3d 423

Hurles pled guilty to Count II (ATM thefts) after being charged with two counts of grand theft; Count I was dismissed.
District court ordered $204,174.61 in restitution: $10,000 for lottery thefts, $145,440 for ATM thefts, $48,734.61 in attorney fees.
State relied on a Givens Pursley spreadsheet to calculate ATM restitution, but the record did not show how this related to the agreed DRs (disclosure reports).
Hurles challenged restitution on multiple grounds: implicit waiver of accountant-client privilege, substantial evidence for the amount, and inclusion of Morrisons’ attorney fees.
Plea agreement and restitution were discussed on the record but not reduced to writing, raising questions about terms and scope of restitution.
Court remanded for further proceedings to determine ATM restitution consistent with the DRs and to resolve privilege and fee issues on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution was supported by substantial evidence	Hurles argues the ATM restitution relied on an inappropriate metric.	Hurles contends the evidence did not match the agreed DRs; improper basis for amount.	Partially remanded; ATM restitution vacated pending remand and proper DR-based calculation.
Whether Morrisons implicitly waived accountant-client privilege	Hurles asserts waiver through litigation, statements to police, and PSI disclosures.	Morrisons’ privilege not clearly waived on record; contested.	Remanded to address privilege issue; waiver not decided.
Whether including Morrisons’ attorney fees was an abuse of discretion	Hurles argues fees were not direct economic losses causally tied to thefts.	Fees necessary to recover losses or prepare for restitution may be included.	Fees for third-party suits and bankruptcy fees reversed; remainder to be resolved on remand.
Whether attorney fees for restitution proceedings were properly awarded	Hurles contends Pursley fees were unwarranted or not tied to DR-based calculation.	Fees may be recoverable if related to investigating losses and preparing for restitution.	Vacated to the extent not tied to DR-based calculation; remand to determine proper fees.

State v. Corbus, 150 Idaho 599 (2011) (restoration of direct economic losses and causation test framework)
State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165 (2006) (expenses to investigate losses and prepare for restitution are recoverable)
State v. Nienburg, 153 Idaho 491 (2012) (plea-based restitution scope and ambiguity considerations)
State v. Kellis, 129 Idaho 730 (1997) (disclosure of plea agreement terms on record; contract-like interpretation of plea terms)
State v. Shafer, 161 P.3d 689 (Ct. App. 2007) (restitution scope beyond direct crime can be referenced in plea agreements)
State v. Schall, 337 P.3d 647 (2014) (review standards in appeal from Court of Appeals; deference to trial court findings)