Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                                    No. 66258-9-I
                       Respondent,
        v.                                          DIVISION ONE

 SHAUN CLINTON WALLEN,                              UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                       Appellant.                   FILED: June 11, 2012

        Leach, C.J.  --  Shaun Wallen appeals an order of restitution, arguing the 

 State did not prove the victims' property losses by a preponderance of the 

 evidence.  He also claims that due process required the sentencing court to limit

 the restitution amount to those losses claimed at the time he entered his guilty 

 plea.  The victims' declaration  sufficiently  supports the amount of restitution 

 ordered.  Because Wallen knew that restitution was a consequence of his guilty 

 plea, and he has not demonstrated that the law requires more, he received due 

 process.  We affirm.  
                                    BACKGROUND

        The State charged Wallen with residential burglary, first degree theft, and 

 first degree trafficking in stolen property based on an incident at the house of 

 Jack and Karen Moffet.  The information alleged that Wallen  "did  wrongfully  

No. 66258-9-I/2

obtain or exert unauthorized       control over property . . . to-wit: Pool table, 

lawnmower, Christmas decorations and duffel bag,              of an aggregate value 
exceeding $1,500."1  Wallen pleaded guilty to first degree theft, and the State 

dismissed the other charges against him.  In his plea statement, Wallen 

admitted,  "Between August 4th and 22nd, 2009, I, along with others, did 

unlawfully obtain or exert authority over the property of another, valued over 

$1500 in Skagit County."    Wallen also agreed to pay restitution "up to double my 

gain or double the victim's loss." Wallen received a 52 month sentence.  

       The State sought $34,984.99 in restitution.  At the restitution hearing, the 

State relied on a written victim loss statement, which Karen Moffet signed under 

penalty of perjury.  The State also provided the sentencing court with a list of 24 

items of missing or damaged property and an estimated value for each item, 

totaling $34,984.99. The Moffetts did not testify at the restitution hearing.

       Wallen's counsel objected to the requested restitution amount, arguing 

that the values were not supported by adequate documentation and that the list 

contained items beyond the scope of Wallen's plea agreement: 

       In many cases I don't have enough information and I don't think the 
       Court has enough information to determine whether that's a 
       reasonable value or not, but the main issue I have, your Honor, is 
       that this list that the Court has, I received approximately two 
       months or so after Mr. Wallen plead guilty.

Wallen provided the  sentencing        court with the witness statement of Kim 

1 The affidavit of probable cause listed the items taken in the burglary as "a pool 
table valued at $4,800, a John Deere riding lawnmower valued at $3,600, a clear 
Rubbermaid type container with a blue lid containing Christmas decorations, a 
black backpack, and a light blue colored gym bag." .  
                                           2 

No. 66258-9-I/3

Ammons, the Moffets' daughter.2   That list contained nine items of missing 

property, with values totaling $15,700.  Wallen claimed Ammons's list was the 

only documentation "Mr. Wallen ever received, as far as notice, of what would 

be claimed as restitution."  The sentencing court ordered Wallen to pay the full 

restitution amount sought by the State.  Wallen appeals.  

                                      ANALYSIS

       Wallen first claims that sufficient evidence does not support the restitution

amount because the values the Moffets assigned each item were based on 

"rough estimates" that "failed to account for the wear and age of the items."  A

sentencing court has the discretion to determine the total amount of restitution 

owed, and we will not disturb that determination on appeal absent an abuse of 
discretion.3   An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial  court's decision is 

manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.4  

       The authority to order restitution derives from statute.  RCW 9.94A.753(5)

requires a court to order restitution "whenever the offender is convicted of an 

offense which results in injury to any person or damage to or loss of property."       If 

a defendant disputes facts material to determining the restitution amount, the 

sentencing court must hold an evidentiary hearing, during which the State is 
required to prove the requested amount by a preponderance of the evidence.5  A 

2 The affidavit of probable cause explains that the Moffets owned the house, 
which was then vacant but periodically "checked on" by family members in the 
area.  
3 State v. Davison, 116 Wn.2d 917, 919, 809 P.2d 1374 (1991).
4 State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675, 679-80, 974 P.2d 828 (1999).
5 State v. Dedonado, 99 Wn. App. 251, 256, 991 P.2d 1216 (2000).  

                                           3 

No. 66258-9-I/4

causal connection between the crime and the victim's damages must exist.6  

While restitution "shall be based on easily ascertainable damages,"7 the amount 

need not be established with specific accuracy.8       Sufficient evidence supports a 

restitution order if the evidence affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss.9  

       We disagree that the evidence here  was insufficient to establish the 

values of the stolen items.  Wallen contends that the State could not establish 

the actual value of the items at the time of the theft without more documentation.  

However, in Washington the owner of a chattel is always qualified to testify to its 
market value.10   This information may be provided in the form of letters and 

declarations.11   Receipts and other documentation are not necessary to prove

the value of the property taken.12  Here, the Moffets listed each item of stolen or 

damaged property and provided their opinion as to its value.  The State provided 

the defense with the Moffets' list  months  before the restitution hearing, and 
Wallen had the opportunity to rebut the State's evidence.13  As noted by the 

sentencing court, the values were not clearly excessive.  The Moffets'

declaration was sufficient by itself to establish the restitution amount.  
       Wallen relies on State v. Dedonado.14           In  Dedonado,     the defendant 

6 Dedonado, 99 Wn. App. at 256.
7 RCW 9.94A.753(3).
8 Dedonado, 99 Wn. App. at 256.
9 Dedonado, 99 Wn. App. at 256.
10 State v. Hammond, 6 Wn. App. 459, 461, 493 P.2d 1249 (1972).
11 See State v. Tobin, 132 Wn. App. 161, 175, 130 P.3d 426 (2006); State v. 
Lohr, 130 Wn. App. 904, 910-11, 125 P.3d 977 (2005).  
12 See People v. Ford, 77 A.D.3d 1176, 1177-78, 910 N.Y.S.2d 235 (2010),
leave to appeal denied, 954 N.E.2d 96 (2011).
13 See State v. Kisor, 68 Wn. App. 610, 620, 844 P.2d 1038 (1993).
14 99 Wn. App. 251 (2000).  

                                           4 

No. 66258-9-I/5

challenged the causal connection between his actions and the damages.  There, 

the State failed to provide sufficient documentation showing that a replacement 

generator of a certain brand was a proper replacement for another brand and 

also failed to show that numerous repairs made to a van were causally related to 

the defendant's action in damaging the van's ignition switch.  The court held:

       A causal connection is not established simply because a victim or
       insurer submits proof of expenditures for replacing property stolen
       or damaged by the person convicted. . . . The State did not meet its
       burden of proving the restitution amounts here by a preponderance
       of the evidence because the documentation it provided did not
       establish a causal connection between Dedonado's actions and the
       damages.[15]

Here, Wallen does not challenge the causal connection between the claimed 

property losses and  his admitted criminal conduct.          Rather, he contests the 

sufficiency of the evidence concerning the amount of damages, an issue not 

addressed in Dedonado.       The trial court did not abuse its discretion by relying 

on the Moffets' victim loss statement when it determined the amount of restitution 

for the stolen items.

       Second, Wallen argues that it violated his due process rights to order 

restitution in a "materially greater amount" than the losses claimed at the time he 

entered his guilty plea.  Due process requires that a defendant's guilty plea be 
made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.16    To be knowing and voluntary, a 

criminal defendant must be informed of all of the direct consequences of his 

15 Dedonado, 99 Wn. App. at 257.
16 In re Pers. Restraint of Isadore, 151 Wn.2d 294, 297, 88 P.3d 390 (2004).  

                                           5 

No. 66258-9-I/6

plea.17  A direct consequence has "'a definite, immediate and largely automatic 

effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.'"18   Restitution is a direct 

consequence of entering a guilty plea.19       Therefore, a trial court must advise a 

defendant of the possibility of restitution before he or she enters a plea.20

       Here, Wallen admitted in his plea statement that he unlawfully obtained or 

exerted authority over the property of another valued at over $1,500.           He also 

acknowledged that the prosecutor would ask the court to order restitution as 

compensation for the victims of his crime and that "[t]he amount of restitution 

may be up to double my gain or double the victim's loss."           Therefore, Wallen 

knew that restitution, in an amount to be established at a future hearing, was a 
direct consequence of his guilty plea.21

       Wallen asserts that due process also required notice of the amount of 

restitution at the time he entered his guilty plea.  He, however, does not support 

his assertion with citation to authority.  Therefore, we conclude that he has found 
none and decline to consider his argument further.22   When Wallen pleaded 

guilty to theft, he knew that restitution was a consequence of his plea.  Because 

17 State v. Ross, 129 Wn.2d 279, 284, 916 P.2d 405 (1996).  
18 Ross, 129 Wn.2d at 284 (quoting State v. Barton, 93 Wn.2d 301, 305, 609 
P.2d 1353 (1980)).  
19 State v. Cameron, 30 Wn. App. 229, 234, 633 P.2d 901 (1981).  
20 Cameron, 30 Wn. App. at 234.
21 See State v. Codiga, 162 Wn.2d 912, 923, 175 P.3d 1082 (2008) ("Knowledge 
of the direct consequences of the plea can be satisfied by the plea documents.").
22 State v. Logan, 102 Wn. App. 907, 911 n.1, 10 P.3d 504 (2000) ("'Where no 
authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court is not required to 
search out authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent search, has 
found none.'") (quoting DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 
372 P.2d 193 (1962)).
                                           6 

No. 66258-9-I/7

Wallen has not demonstrated that the law requires more, he fails to establish a 

due process violation.    

                                        CONCLUSION

       Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's restitution order, and Wallen 

fails to establish that his guilty plea was involuntary.  We affirm.

WE CONCUR:

                                           7