State v. Phillips
253 P.3d 372
Kan. Ct. App.2011Background
- Phillips pled no contest to one count of felony theft, a severity level 9 nonperson felony.
- He received a 6-month prison term but was granted 6 months' probation with restitution to be determined later.
- Approximately 6 months after sentencing, the court ordered restitution in the amount of $19,127.36.
- The district court reserved jurisdiction to set restitution at a later evidentiary hearing.
- Phillips objected to the amount, arguing it exceeded fair market value and relied on repair costs rather than fair market value.
- The court ultimately reversed the restitution amount and remanded for a fair market value determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to order restitution after sentencing | Phillips argues lack of post-sentencing restitution jurisdiction | Phillips asserts jurisdiction exists to set restitution post-sentencing | Restitution may be ordered post-sentencing per Cooper/Bryant; no error in jurisdiction |
| Proper measure of restitution (repair costs vs. fair market value) | Restitution based on repair costs is excessive; relies on NADA values | Restitution should reflect actual loss; may include repair costs | Restitution must not exceed fair market value; remanded for FMV determination |
| Adequacy of evidentiary support for the restitution amount | State failed to prove FMV; relied on repair estimates | Evidence supports loss and repairs; adequate to determine restitution | Evidence did not establish FMV; required re-determination based on FMV |
| Prejudice from delay in restitution determination | Delay not prejudicial under Cooper/Bryant; permissible to determine amount later |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cooper, 267 Kan. 15 (1999) (restitution may be reserved for later determination)
- State v. Bryant, 37 Kan. App. 2d 924 (2007) (restitution hearing timing is directory, not mandatory)
- State v. Hunziker, 274 Kan. 655 (2002) (restitution must reflect actual loss; not windfall)
- State v. Casto, 22 Kan. App. 2d 152 (1996) (restitution based on fair market value or reasonable substitutes; not replacement cost beyond FMV)
- State v. Baxter, 34 Kan. App. 2d 364 (2005) (restitution not based on replacement cost when FMV applicable)
- State v. Rhodes, 31 Kan. App. 2d 1040 (2003) (restitution valuation principles; FMV/repair cost considerations)
- State v. Maloney, 36 Kan. App. 2d 711 (2006) (consider factors like purchase price, condition, and replacement cost when FMV not readily ascertainable)