Summary 2006 WY 103

Summary of Decision issued August 23, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Hampton v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 103

Docket Number: 05-269

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Nancy Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Roden.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Pojman.

Issue: Whether the district court erred in ordering Appellant to pay restitution to victim.

Holding: Appellant pled no contest to one count of forgery and one count of using false written statements to obtain property or credit. At sentencing, the victim (William Stevens) sought restitution as a victim of the forgery. The district court ultimately ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $15,113.

Appellate review of ordered restitution is confined to a search for procedural error or a clear abuse of discretion. The amount of restitution should be supported by sufficient evidence. The Court endeavors to interpret statutes in accordance with the legislature’s intent. The trial court does not have the inherent power to award compensation to victims of crimes; it may only order restitution that is authorized by statute. Reading the statutes Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-9-102, § 7-9-103 and § 7-9-101, pecuniary damages are a primary consideration in awarding restitution. Victims are only entitled to receive pecuniary damages that are the result of a defendant’s criminal activities. The State bears the burden of presenting credible evidence and proving the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The State’s evidence regarding restitution consisted of the victim’s testimony at the sentencing hearing, a statement contained in the presentence investigation report, and a victim impact statement filed with the district court. Based on the evidence presented in the instant case, the Court found it unreasonable for the district court to have ordered restitution in favor of the victim. The State failed to establish a causal link between Appellant’s fraudulent acquisition and use of the credit card and the denials of credit to the victim in 2001. It was the State’s burden to supply such proof and without it, restitution is inappropriate.

The restitution order of the district court was reversed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the order for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/fuoug .