OPINION
Thе appellant, Cynthia Lea Crouch, was convicted in the District Court of Latimer County, Case No. CRF-84-33, of Embezzlement and False Accounts by Officers for which she received a sentence of two and one-half years, and a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00). The trial court additionally required restitution of forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000.00) to be paid within four years. The appellant appeals raising five assignments of error.
Briefly stated, the appellant was secretary/treasurer of the Wilburton Public Works Authority (Water Department) during fiscal year 1982-1983. Her duties in pertinent part, included receiving and accepting payments for water bills and meter deposits, and maintaining records and books. An attempt to audit the books for that fiscal year was unsuccessful because records of customers’ accounts, pay transactions, and delinquent registers were missing. During this period, thе appellant made all deposits except for the days she was absent as a result of vacation or illness. An examination of the original deposit slips which were routinely returned to the Water Department revealed numerous alterations. The auditor discovered that fifty-nine original deposit slips had been altered and that bank microfilm copies of the slips showed only check deposit entries while the original deposit slips showed both cash and check deposits. Evidence further rеvealed large cash deposits into both the savings and checking accounts of the appellant and her husband. That evidence showed total deposits greatly in excess of the combined salaries of the appellant and her husband.
Appellant denied taking the funds, stated that the alterations were not in her handwriting, and that the money she deposited was the result of insurance checks, payback of loans to family members, and sales of cattle.
In her first assignment of error, the appellant complains that telephone calls were made to at least two jurors during the trial, and that the trial court failed to hold an adequate hearing to determine thе impact of the communication. During the hearing on the motion for new trial, the defense counsel stated that on the second day of trial the court was advised by two members of the jury that they had received threatening phone calls, and one of the jurors told the judge where he believed the calls originated. During the trial, the court instructеd the jurors that they were to inform the court if they had been contacted regarding the case. We have no record
The appellant next alleges that the trial judge indicated his prejudice in favor of the prosecution through facial expressiоns and through nonverbal means. The appellant cites only one portion of the transcript, in which defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the general grounds that “the Prosecutor and the Judge are prejudiced in this case,” and that the judge looked to the prosecutor for legal advice. An examination of the entire transсript fails to support the appellant’s allegations that she had been treated unfairly. If a judge during a trial is indicating prejudice through nonverbal means, the defense counsel must object and dictate his specific complaint into the record. An appellant does not meet his burden of showing prejudice by a mere allegation which has no support in the record. See Dollar. Having failed to properly preserve this assignment of error, we find no merit therein.
In her last three assignments of error, the appellant complains about the restitution she was ordered to pay. She first urges that the judgment and sentence which included the $45,000.00 restitution was excessive and irrational. She clаims that because she has been given only four years to repay the $45,000.00, and she was sentenced to two and one-half years in the penitentiary, she has actually beеn given only one and one-half years to repay that amount. Concerning the time in which the appellant has been ordered to repay the funds embezzled, the judgment and sentence on conviction states that she is ordered to pay the restitution amount “within four years of her release from custody.” Concerning the sentence and finе, the appellant was convicted of violating
The appellant next urges that the restitution ordered was not supported by sufficient proof. She claims that the amount set was arbitrary. Title 22 O.S. Supp.1984, § 991a(B) provided in part, “When sentencing a person convictеd of a crime, the court shall first consider a program of restitution for the victim, as well as imposition of a fine or incarceration of the offender.” Section 991a(A)(l)(a) provided that the amount of restitution may be set by the court if the defendant is able to pay such restitution without imposing manifest hardship on the defendant or his immediate family, and if the extent of the damage to the victim is determinable with reasonable certainty.
The pre-sentence investigation report, dated April 22, 1985, indicated the net worth of the appellant and her husband, by their own estimate, to be $35,000.00. The evidence presented at the trial by an accountant who testified for the defense showed thаt during the time period he was instructed to examine, June 1, 1982 through July 1, 1983, the appellant deposited a total of $91,586.48 into her checking and savings accounts, with cash or unexplained deposits in the amount of $30,-548.08. At the time the appellant quit her job with the City of Wilburton, she was
Finally, the appellant urges that the order for restitution violates her constitutional rights because there are no procedural safeguards, and that restitution should not be allowed as a substitution for a civil action to recover damages. Title 22 O.S. Supp.1984, § 991a makes restitution one of the options аvailable to the trial court during sentencing requiring that the amount be “determinable with reasonable certainty.” The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, held under a federal restitution statute that such a provision for a court to determine the amount of any restitution to be paid is a constitutional extension of sentencing. United States v. Watchman,
The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.
Notes
. The subsequent amendment, effective November 1, 1985, and codified 22 O.S.Supp.1985, § 991a, did not change the provisions cited above.