No. 52362-7-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: June 1, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 02-1-03026-9. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 05/20/2003. Judge signing: Hon. George T Mattson.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Thomas Michael Kummerow, WA Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA, 98101-2402.
Roman McFetridge (Appearing Pro Se), 333 So. 320th St., Apt. A-4, Federal Way, WA 98003.
Counsel for Respondent(s), E Bradford Bales, King Co Pros Aty Ofc, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
PER CURIAM.
Roman McFetridge appeals the restitution order entered following his plea of guilty to taking a motor vehicle without permission, attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, and possession of methamphetamine. We affirm.
The charges arose from an incident on May 5, 2002. An officer saw McFetridge driving a stolen Acura. When officers tried to stop the car, McFetridge took several actions to get away, twice hitting the police officers’ cars. He then sped off, driving at high speeds and endangering others. By the time he was stopped, the stolen car he was driving was severely damaged. Two patrol cars were also damaged.
McFetridge pleaded guilty to the charges and agreed to pay `restitution in full to the victims for all losses including hit and run damages.’[1]
The State requested restitution of $10,553.24. The total was based on: $1110.17 to the owner of the Acura for items in her car she had to replace,[2] a towing charge, and a car rental for one day; $5,142.61 for the City of Auburn’s costs to repair the damaged police vehicles; and $4300.46 to USAA Insurance, the victim’s insurer, for the cost of totaling the Acura. McFetridge disputed some aspects of this amount. The trial court rejected the challenges and entered a restitution order for $10, 553.24.
On appeal McFetridge’s sole argument is that the court must reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing because the record included none of the evidence offered by the State and relied on by the court in setting restitution. After appellant’s opening brief was filed, the State’s motion to supplement the record was granted without opposition. The record now includes all of the documents relied on in determining restitution, and the documents fully support the amount. McFetridge does not argue to the contrary.
The restitution order is affirmed.
KENNEDY, COLEMAN, APPELWICK, JJ., concur.