State v. Webb
131 So. 3d 942
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Vori P. Webb worked as scale operator/cashier at ArcelorMittal Mississippi River Recycling and admitted to generating fictitious transactions in the name of "Jamal Parham," issuing checks to that name.
- Company records showed $825,000 in checks made payable to Parham; Webb repaid $47,500.
- Webb pled guilty and the trial court held a restitution hearing, finding Parham did not exist and ordering $777,500 restitution (825,000 minus 47,500).
- The court deferred sentence, placed Webb on five years probation, and ordered restitution payable in 60 equal monthly installments—while also saying the probation department would determine monthly payments.
- Webb appealed, challenging (1) the restitution amount/credit for scrap delivered, (2) the court’s finding that Parham did not exist, and (3) the trial court’s failure to set monthly payments based on her earning capacity and assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of restitution | State: Restitution equals actual checks to Parham less repayments | Webb: Court ordered restitution exceeding proven pecuniary loss; should credit value of any real scrap delivered | Affirmed $777,500 restitution (825,000 less 47,500); trial court credibility findings sustained |
| Existence of "Jamal Parham" | State: Evidence supports conclusion Parham was fictitious | Webb: Prosecutor admitted Parham "exists"; insufficient evidence to find nonexistence | Court credited surveillance, employee testimony, and absence of Parham; found no error in concluding Parham did not exist |
| Credit for scrap delivered | State: Loss measured by checks issued; company records/supporting evidence control | Webb: Should receive offset for actual material delivered under Parham name | Rejected—trial court properly refused credit based on evidence and credibility determinations |
| Monthly payment calculation | State: Court may set payment schedule or defer to probation with investigation | Webb: Court erred by ordering 60 equal installments without considering earning capacity/assets | Remanded: trial court must determine manner/amount of payments after considering Webb's earning capacity and assets |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blanchard, 861 So.2d 657 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2003) (trial court restitution rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Rowan, 694 So.2d 1052 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1997) (credibility determinations of factfinder will not be reweighed on appeal)
- State v. Joseph, 30 So.3d 157 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009) (remand required where trial court failed to set restitution payment method considering defendant’s earning capacity and assets)
- State v. McGee, 996 So.2d 1191 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2008) (trial court’s delegation to probation department without considering earning capacity/assets required remand)
- State v. Alexander, 720 So.2d 82 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1998) (same principle regarding restitution payment determinations)
- State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (error patent review authority)
- State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1990) (error patent review authority)