Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1382 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Heather Marie Nelson, Appellant. Filed March 22, 2011 Affirmed as modified Klaphake, Judge Blue Earth County District Court File No. 07-CR-09-2829 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Ross E. Arneson, Blue Earth County Attorney, Michael A. Hanson, Assistant County Attorney, Mankato, Minnesota (for respondent) Silas L. Danielson, Blethen, Gage & Krause, PLLP, Mankato, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Chief Judge; and Larkin, Judge. SYLLABUS For purposes of determining restitution in a criminal case, a district court may include the value of a crime victim's claimed item of loss only if the loss was directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.

OPINION KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Heather Marie Nelson challenges the district court's order requiring her to pay $19,412 as restitution for her misdemeanor theft of tanning services from a Mankato tanning salon. We affirm the district court's decision to award restitution but modify that award by reducing it to $156, the amount of claimed loss that was caused by appellant's criminal conduct. FACTS On August 20, 2006, C.F., the owner of the tanning salon, discovered that one of her employees was tanning for free after her work shifts ended. The tanning salon used a computer software program to record client tanning sessions and to track cash flow related to client accounts. The employee, Leita Ann Baker, had not recorded her afterhours tanning sessions on the computer program. Baker was immediately fired by C.F. After conducting an extensive investigation of employee time records and tanning logs, C.F. discovered that three other employees, including appellant, Sarah Maree Pierce, and Jessica Marie Lynn, had also been taking free tans and giving them to others. In order to accomplish this, they created fictitious tanning accounts, added tanning packages or other "add-ons" to those accounts or existing accounts and later deleted the accounts or the add-ons, manipulated the computer software to award free tans, rang up tans at no charge, and engaged in other similar conduct. According to C.F., she lost $7,700 in revenue as a result of the employees' conduct.

2

On September 20, 2006, C.F. fired appellant.

Nearly three years later, on

September 2, 2009, appellant was charged with one count of felony theft-by-swindle under Minn. Stat.

Download A10-1382, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Heather Marie Nelson, Appellant..p

Minnesota Law