Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present:    Judges Coleman, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
JOHN ALEXIS BAZEMORE
OPINION BY
v.    Record No.                                                    0867-96-1   JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES
AUGUST  26,  1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
E. Preston Grissom, Judge
John W. Brown for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
John Alexis Bazemore, appellant, pled guilty to grand
larceny.    Appellant's participation in the larceny consisted of
his having driven a rented truck to the Givens Corporation
(Givens), helping others load the truck with all terrain
vehicles, motorcycles, and other items, driving the loaded truck
to a meeting place, and then driving the truck to a farm where he
helped unload it.    The total value of the stolen property was
approximately  $150,000.
On March  21,  1996, appellant was sentenced to ten years in
prison, suspended, and ordered to pay restitution of  $42,804.46.
On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in
determining the amount of restitution.    He argues that the
restitution amount should not have included the expenses that
Givens incurred in retrieving the stolen items and in determining
the amount of its loss.    He also contends that because his role




in the theft was minor, the court erred in requiring him to pay
the full amount of restitution.    We hold that the trial court
acted within its discretion in determining the amount of and
terms and conditions of the restitution to be paid.    Therefore,
we affirm the trial court's decision.
Code  §  19.2-305.1(A) provides that "no person convicted of a
crime  .  .  . which resulted in property damage or loss, shall be
placed on probation or have his sentence suspended unless such
person shall make at least partial restitution for such property
damage or loss."    Restitution for the property damage or loss "is
a well established sentencing component, intended to benefit both
offender and victim."    Frazier v. Commonwealth,  20 Va. App.  719,
721-22,  460 S.E.2d  608,  609  (1995).    Sentencing statutes are to
be liberally construed to give the trial court broad discretion.
See Deal v. Commonwealth,  15 Va. App.  157,  160,  421 S.E.2d  897,
899  (1992).
Code  §  19.2-305.1(C) states that "the court, in its
discretion, shall determine the amount to be repaid by the
defendant and the terms and conditions thereof."    The burden of
proving the amount of "property damage or loss" for purposes of
applying Code  §  19.2-305.1(A) is by the preponderance of the
evidence.    See Alger v. Commonwealth,  19 Va. App.  252,  258,  450
S.E.2d  765,  768  (1994)  (citations omitted).    The evidence proved
that some of the stolen property was recovered.    Givens had to
pay American Honda  $44,901.21 for items Givens had received from
2




American Honda but could not sell because the items were not
returned or were damaged.    The salvage value of the returned
property was  $15,469.13.    Deducting that amount from the amount
paid to American Honda left Givens with a net loss of  $29,432.08.
Other expenses incurred by Givens because of the theft included
truck rental to pick up the stolen property  ($76.38); the costs
of the survey of the property for damage  ($1,264); handling labor
costs  ($64); inventory labor costs  ($5,120); supervisory costs
($440); forklift costs  ($648); and management time  ($5,760).    The
Commonwealth proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
total amount lost, excluding the amount of lost interest, was
$42,804.46.    The trial court correctly determined that a victim
is entitled to recover the expenses of determining the amount of
the loss.    Therefore, the expenses that Givens incurred in
calculating the full impact and cost of the theft were properly
included in the amount of restitution.    Thus, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion by granting  $42,804.46 in restitution to
Givens.
Moreover, the trial court properly exercised its discretion
in determining "the terms and conditions" of the restitution.
Code  §  19.2-305.1(C).    Although appellant was acting in concert
with others, he was guilty of all crimes committed and was fully
responsible for the total loss the victim sustained.    The court
determined that appellant would be jointly and severally liable
for Givens' total loss.    The court also ordered that any amounts
3




paid by the codefendants would reduce the amount that appellant
would ultimately be required to pay in restitution.    The trial
court acted within its sentencing authority in ordering
restitution in the amount of  $42,804.46.    See Code
§  19.2-305.1(C).
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in including the
victim's expenses in determining the amount of the restitution or
in making appellant jointly and severally liable for Givens'
total loss.
Affirmed.
4

Download 0867961.pdf

Virginia Law