Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Kansas

May 24, 2019

State of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Aaron Ryan Smith, Appellant.

         SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

         1. Any restitution ordered in a criminal case must be based on the damage or loss caused by the crime. Restitution depends upon the establishment of a causal link between the defendant's crime and the victim's damages.

         2. The damage or loss caused by the defendant's crime shall include the cost of repair or replacement of the property that was damaged.

          Appeal from Shawnee District Court; Richard D. Anderson, judge.

          Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

          Rachel L. Pickering, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

          Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Hill, J., and Stutzman, S.J.

          HILL, J.

         Aaron Ryan Smith pled no contest to two counts of possession of stolen property. In his plea agreement, Smith agreed to pay "all verifiable restitution." He appeals the amount of restitution ordered by the district court.

         The court found Smith guilty of possessing a motorcycle stolen from Andrew Rodvelt and a scooter stolen from John Miller in violation of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5801 (theft). We look first at the motorcycle and then the scooter.

         Police located Rodvelt's motorcycle and returned it. The motorcycle had been damaged and Rodvelt had a repair shop estimate the cost of repairs. The estimate for repairs was $1, 365.77. The repairs included replacing the back rest, replacing the ignition switch, and painting the fuel tank. Rodvelt testified that these repairs were not needed before his motorcycle was stolen. The district court credited Rodvelt's uncontroverted testimony regarding the amount that it would cost to return the motorcycle to the condition it was in before it was stolen. The court ordered restitution in the amount of $1, 365.77.

         The scooter was a different situation. Miller bought his scooter in April 2015 for $2, 141.93 and it was stolen in November 2015. His scooter was never returned. After receiving notice that Smith had been charged with possession of his stolen property, Miller called the Highway Patrol. The patrol officer told him the scooter was towed by Kitch Towing. Miller then got in touch with Kitch and it told him the scooter had been sold. After demanding proof that Kitch had attempted to contact him before selling it, Kitch then told Miller that the scooter had been stolen. At sentencing, the district court commented that Smith, the Highway Patrol, and Kitch "ought to all maybe talk about how they're going to share the loss," but it found that the misconduct of other parties did not diminish the loss that Miller suffered and ordered $2, 141.93 in restitution. In other words, the court ordered Smith to pay the actual cost of the scooter as restitution.

         We repeat the law that guides us.

         The law gives clear directions concerning restitution. Restitution "shall include, but not be limited to, damage or loss caused by the defendant's crime, unless the court finds compelling circumstances which would render a plan of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.