This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C5-03-403

 

 

In the Matter of the Welfare of:  B. L. W.

 

 

Filed September 30, 2003

Affirmed

Stoneburner, Judge

 

 

Isanti County District Court

File No. J1-02-50165

 

 

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Ann McCaughan, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue SE, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant B.L.W.)

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN  55101; and

 

Jeffrey Edblad, Isanti County Attorney, Kimberley Sobieck, Assistant County Attorney, 555 18th Avenue Southwest, Cambridge, MN 55008 (for respondent state of Minnesota)

 

            Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Willis, Judge, and Stoneburner, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

STONEBURNER, Judge

            Appellant B.L.W. asserts that the district court abused its discretion in calculating a restitution award.  Because the record supports the district court’s calculation, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for felony possession of stolen property.  At a contested restitution hearing, appellant admitted possessing 26 of the 34 PlayStation games stolen from the victim, but testified that he never had possession of eight of the stolen games. Two games were returned to the victim on the day of the restitution hearing.  The district court ordered appellant to pay restitution based on the value of 32 stolen games, minus the depreciated value of the games that was paid by the victim’s insurer, plus the victim’s insurance deductible.  The award did not include restitution claimed for damage to the victim’s home that occurred during the break-in.  This appeal followed. 

D E C I S I O N

District courts have broad discretion in imposing restitution.  State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn. 1999).  “A victim of a crime has the right to receive restitution as part of the disposition of a . . . juvenile delinquency proceeding against the offender if the offender is . . . found delinquent.  Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2002). 

In awarding restitution, the district court must consider  “(1) the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense; and (2) the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant.”  Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a) (2002).  “A request for restitution may include, but is not limited to, any out-of-pocket losses resulting from the crime, including medical and therapy costs . . . .”  Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2002).  Restitution is only proper where the victim’s losses are “directly caused” by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.  State v. Olson, 381 N.W.2d 899, 901 (Minn. App. 1986).  The record must provide a factual basis for the restitution award.  State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn. 1984).  The defendant’s liability for that award must also be clearly supported by the record.  State v. Chapman, 362 N.W.2d 401, 404 (Minn. App. 1985).  Only if the district court abused its discretion will this court reverse a restitution award.  Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d at 671.

Restitution was ordered in the amount of $736.14.  This amount was based on the $250 insurance deductible paid by the victim plus the difference between what he paid for the 32 PlayStation games that were stolen and the amount he was reimbursed by his insurance company for those games.  Appellant argues the amount of restitution was calculated incorrectly.  Appellant claims he only had 26 of the 34 games that were taken, and that two of those 26 were returned on the day of the restitution hearing.  He concludes, therefore, that the restitution amount should have been the equivalent of the replacement cost of 24 games at $646.32 (24 x $26.93) minus the insurance reimbursement of $387.84 (24 x $16.16 depreciated reimbursement) for a total of $258.48.  Appellant further argues that he should not have been ordered to pay reimbursement for the $250 insurance deductible, because it is a cost associated with the burglary.  He states that because he was not responsible for the actual burglary resulting in a loss of personal property greater than $3,000 he should, at most, be responsible for a prorated portion of the deductible to reflect the ratio of the stolen property in his possession to the amount of the total loss.  Appellant argues that this court should reverse the order for restitution and remand for new findings on the restitution for the games, and for what, if any, portion of the insurance deductible the court intended appellant to be responsible.     

The amount of restitution ordered, however, demonstrates that the district court rejected appellant’s assertion that he did not possess eight of the stolen games.  See Varner v. Varner, 400 N.W.2d 117, 121 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding a district court, as finder of fact, is not required to believe even uncontradicted testimony if there are reasonable grounds to doubt its credibility).  The district court ordered appellant to pay the victim the difference between what he testified he paid for the games and what the insurer paid him ($860.00 – $366.18 = $493.82).  The deductible of $250 was added to this, reflecting the district court’s apparent conclusion that the amount of the deductible would have been the same even if the victim had not been claiming theft of other items and damage to his home.  The district court did not include the value of the two games returned on the date of the hearing in the restitution calculation.  The amount of restitution ordered by the district court is directly related to the offense committed by appellant.  The manner in which the court arrived at the specific amount is supported by the record and was not an abuse of discretion.

            Affirmed.