Summary 2007 WY 169

Summary of Decision issued October 25, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Glover v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 169

Docket Number: S-07-0074

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; and Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the district court erred in ordering Appellant to pay restitution to the victim and to reimburse the State for public defender fees.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor battery. He was sentenced to a period of incarceration, ordered to pay restitution to the victim and to reimburse the State for his court-appointed counsel fees.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews factual challenges to district court orders awarding restitution for abuse of discretion.
Restitution: Pursuant to statute, the district court was required to order Appellant to pay all or part of the damages the victim could recover against Appellant in a civil action for battery unless the court found that he had no ability to pay at the time of his conviction and no reasonable probability of being able to pay in the future. Substantial evidence was presented at trial showing Appellant inflicted the injuries. At sentencing, Appellant admitted he struck the victim and caused the injuries. The Court stated there was no question the victim could have recovered damages in a civil action. The plain language of the statute does not require the district court to specifically find that the defendant has or will have the ability to pay. The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to specifically find Appellant did not and probably would not in the future have an ability to pay restitution.
Reimbursement of Public Defender Fees: Appellant did not object to the order in district court so the Court applied the plain error standard. Appellant’s claim failed because he could not show that the district court’s order violated a clear and unequivocal law. The Court has previously concluded that the provision in the statute directs the district court to either order reimbursement in some amount or explain why the defendant could not pay something.

Holding: The district court did not err when it did not specifically find Appellant did not and probably would not in the future have an ability to pay restitution. No evidence was presented to suggest that Appellant did not or would not have the ability to pay for the reimbursement. The Court found no error in the district court’s order.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/26tsgo .