State v. Head

543 P.3d 41

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Teresa Ann HEAD, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 49030

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

Opinion Filed: November 21, 2023

Review Denied: February 2, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Oneida County. Hon. Javier L. Gabiola, District Judge.

Order of restitution, affirmed.

Waldron Legal, PLLC; Maya P. Waldron, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Andrew V. Wake, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

HUSKEY, Judge

Teresa Ann Head (Head) appeals from the district court’s order of restitution requiring her to pay $24,535.23, jointly and severally with her husband, Jared Head,¹ following a conviction for grand theft. On appeal, Head first argues the district court erred by ordering her to pay the $24,535.00 in restitution because there is not substantial and competent evidence tying her to the economic loss related to motel fees. She further argues the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike testimony, exhibits, and statements from one of the motel residents, S.G., after the State untimely disclosed information regarding S.G.’s competency in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and Idaho Criminal Rule 16. Finally, she asserts the district court erred by exceeding its statutory authority under Idaho Code § 19-5304(8) by ordering joint and several liability when both defendants were present at the proceedings. For the reasons below, we affirm the district court’s order of restitution.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Head and her husband (Jared) managed the Village Inn Motel, owned by Steve and Sally Victor. Head’s primary duty was bookkeeping, although she also managed the cleaning staff. As the motel bookkeeper, Head was required to keep daily records of guests staying at the motel, the length of the stay, and the amount and form of payment. This information was recorded on daily sheets. Head was responsible for depositing cash into the motel account once or twice a week.

During this time, T.D., the owner of Bamma Wamma’s, a local business, approached Head about putting a small soda shop on the property; Head said she would ask the owners of the Village Inn Motel for permission. Head did not contact the Victors, but approximately one week later, T.D. was told that the Victors agreed to allow the soda shop on the property. T.D. agreed to pay $150 cash each month for renting space on the Village Inn Motel property. The Victors were not a party to the contract and were unaware of the business arrangement. The Village Inn Motel ledger indicated that Bamma Wamma’s rental began on September 16, 2017, and was current through May 6, 2018. Rent was paid directly to Head.

In May 2018, after receiving multiple complaints about drug activity, law enforcement officers began watching the Village Inn Motel and its occupants. Law enforcement contacted the Victors to apprise them of the complaints and to ascertain what the Victors knew about the activities at the motel. This contact triggered an investigation into the motel’s finances. As part of the investigation, officers executed a search warrant at the motel and interviewed Head regarding the occupants, motel procedure and protocol for checking in guests, and the rent received from Bamma Wamma’s. The officers obtained and copied the daily sheets which they later cross-checked against known dates regarding the length of time guests stayed at the motel.

The investigation revealed that the daily sheets did not accurately reflect the amount of fees paid in relation to the length of stay for several guests, including S.G. The daily sheets also did not reflect any rental income received from Bamma Wamma’s. Law enforcement learned that Head kept the rental income from Bamma Wamma’s and she never informed the Victors of the lease or deposited any of the rental income into the Village Inn Motel account. Further, Head stated she knew that Jared was keeping the room rental fees for some occupants and allowing other occupants to stay for free. Head omitted names of the occupants given free rooms from the daily sheets, did not correctly document the length of stay for some of the occupants who paid cash, and did not record the full amount of cash payments collected. Jared confirmed with law enforcement that Head knew he let people stay for free and he kept the rent money because all the receipts went through her. Head also told law enforcement that she allowed her adult children to stay at the motel free of charge for varying lengths of time. The Victors were unaware of the discounted room rates and that some occupants were given free accommodations; the Victors never gave the Heads permission to do so.

Head was charged with grand theft, I.C. § 18-2407(1)(b), by "wrongfully tak[ing] monies and services in excess of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) lawful money of the United States from the owner, Sally and Steve Victor, Village Inn Motel, with the intent to deprive another and appropriate to yourself or another." Pursuant to a plea agreement, Head pleaded guilty to grand theft in exchange for the State not filing a persistent violator enhancement. The grand theft charge did not distinguish between loss of revenue from the motel rooms and loss of revenue from the rent from Bamma Wamma’s.

The State moved for restitution. At the restitution hearing, Head argued that she only pleaded guilty to the theft of rent from Bamma Wamma’s, not the rent from the theft of the motel room fees. She also moved to strike evidence and testimony from the record based on the late disclosure by the State regarding S.G.’s competency, claiming a Brady violation resulting in the denial of her due process rights. The district court held that Head was charged with grand theft and the charge did not distinguish between the theft regarding the motel room fees and Bamma Wamma’s’ rent payments. The dis- trict court concluded that Head pleaded guilty to a general charge of grand theft that included all financial losses from the motel, which the district court determined she factually and proximately caused. Implicit in that finding was that Head’s allocution did not limit her guilty plea to only the loss of revenue from Bamma Wamma’s rental payments. The district court also denied Head’s motion to strike testimony from S.G. as it related to the grand theft of motel room fees, finding Brady did not apply in civil proceedings. Head was ordered to pay $24,535.23 of restitution, jointly and severally with her husband. Head timely appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1, 2] A trial court’s order of restitution is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Foeller, 168 Idaho 884, 887, 489 P.3d 795, 798 (2021). When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018). Statutory interpretation is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review. State v. Stover, 140 Idaho 927, 929, 104 P.3d 969, 971 (2005).

III. ANALYSIS

Head argues the district court improperly awarded restitution because there was no competent and substantial evidence linking her criminal conduct to the economic loss related to the motel room fees; she did not plead guilty to any criminal conduct that caused the economic loss of the motel room fees; the district court improperly declined to strike evidence related to S.G. at the restitution hearing in violation of Brady and I.C.R. 16; and the court erred when it ordered her to pay restitution jointly and severally with Jared. In response, the State argues the district court did not err because Head pleaded guilty to a general charge of grand theft that did not distinguish between the motel fees and Bamma Wamma’s rent payments and Head admitted she took more than $1,000 from the Victors. The State further argues that substantial and competent evidence exists connecting Head to the theft of the motel room payments. Next, the State asserts the district court properly determined Brady and I.C.R. 16 are inapplicable as a basis to strike evidence because a restitution hearing is a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding determining guilt. Finally, the State asserts the district court properly interpreted I.C. § 19-5304(8) as providing authority to order joint and several restitution.

A. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Ordering Head to Pay Restitution Relating to the Motel Fees

[3] Idaho Code § 19-5304(2) authorizes a sentencing court to order a defendant to pay restitution for economic loss to the victim of a crime. A "victim" is defined as "a person or entity, who suffers economic loss or injury as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct." I.C. § 19-5304(1)(e)(i). "Economic loss" is defined as "the value of property taken, destroyed, broken, or otherwise harmed, lost wages, and direct out-of-pocket losses or expenses, such as medical expenses resulting from the criminal conduct." I.C. § 19-5304(1)(a). The decision of whether to order restitution, and in what amount, is within the discretion of a trial court, guided by consideration of the factors set forth in I.C. § 19-5304(7) and by the policy favoring full compensation to crime victims who suffer economic loss. State v. Torrez, 156 Idaho 118, 119, 320 P.3d 1277, 1278 (Ct. App. 2014); State v. Bybee, 115 Idaho 541, 543, 768 P.2d 804, 806 (Ct. App. 1989).

[4–7] The trial court must base the amount of restitution upon the preponderance of evidence submitted by the prosecutor, defendant, victim, or presentence...