No. 64009-7-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
July 26, 2010. UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 08-1-12444-1, Regina S. Cahan, J., entered July 17, 2009.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Cox and Appelwick, JJ.
ELLINGTON, J.
The only question raised here is the sufficiency of evidence supporting a restitution order. We hold the evidence was ample and affirm.
When Dau Chong Gieng attempted to elude Seattle police, he sideswiped Jason Sharp’s newly painted car. Gieng pled guilty and agreed to pay restitution “in full.”[1] Gieng waived his right to be present at the restitution hearing. The State offered Sharp’s declaration describing the damage, including damage to the bumpers, and attaching an estimate from a body shop, including repairs to the front and rear bumpers. Counsel for Gieng objected to the “bumper repairs,” stating “there doesn’t seem to be any indication that his bumper had fell off.”[2] The trial court found that the description of the damage created a reasonable inference that the bumpers were damaged and ordered full restitution in the amount of $1220.15. Gieng appeals.
Restitution is required when a criminal offense results in damage to property, which “shall not exceed double the amount of the offender’s gain or the victim’s loss.”[3] Courts have broad discretion in setting restitution.[4] Gieng caused damage all along the driver’s side of Sharp’s car, and it is highly unlikely the bumpers were unscathed. Sharp’s declaration, the body shop estimate, and the reasonable inferences from the evidence amply support the restitution order.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: