State v. Rios

                                299

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
        Argued and submitted June 21, affirmed October 5, 2022


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                   Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
                    IZAK KYLE RIOS,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Multnomah County Circuit Court
                   19CR56336; A174979


  Benjamin S. Johnston, Judge pro tempore.
   Bruce A. Myers, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause
for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet,
Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
   Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause
for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
  HELLMAN, J.
  Affirmed.
300                                             State v. Rios

        HELLMAN, J.
         Defendant appeals from a supplemental judgment
that imposed a restitution award. After striking the victim’s
commercial van and leaving the scene, defendant pleaded
guilty to failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged, ORS 811.700. The trial court awarded restitution of $15,461.92 for the victim’s van repair and towing
charge. On appeal, defendant raises one assignment of error
challenging the restitution award. For the reasons below, we
affirm the supplemental judgment.
         Defendant contends that the state did not present
sufficient evidence to establish that the restitution award
was reasonable. Accordingly, we “examin[e] the evidence in
the light most favorable to the state, as the party that prevailed in the trial court.” State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 

, 

 (2021). “Because the state prevailed,
the issue on review is whether a rational factfinder, accepting all reasonable inferences, could have found the facts necessary to support the award.” 

          A trial court must award restitution when “a defendant has been convicted of a crime that results in economic
damages to the victim and the state has presented evidence
of those damages.” 

; ORS 137.106(1)(a). Economic
damages are “objectively verifiable monetary losses” that
include “reasonable costs incurred for repair or for replacement of damaged property.” ORS 31.705(2)(a). Market value
can be an appropriate measure for the reasonable cost of
repairs. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 

; State v. Tharp,

, 

 (2021). “[A]lthough reasonable market value cannot be established by mere speculation, it can be established through reasonable inferences
that a factfinder could, but is not required to, draw from the
facts adduced.” Tharp, 

-21 (citing Aguirre-Rodriguez, 

).
        Repair Cost
        Defendant contends that the state did not establish that the van repair cost was reasonable. A detailed
repair estimate coupled with photos of vehicle damage can
prove that repair costs are reasonable. Aguirre-Rodriguez,
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2022)            301

. (“[T]he repair estimate, prepared using
local market rates, and the photographs of the damage to
the victim’s truck, demonstrate a sufficient nexus to permit the trial court to conclude that the cost of repairs was
reasonable.”). Likewise, a detailed estimate, the inference
that labor costs are based on local rates, and a factfinder’s
ability “to assess the damage for itself and compare that
to the estimated repair costs” allow a trial court to conclude an estimate is reasonable. Tharp, 

.

         Here, a rational factfinder could find that the repair
cost was reasonable. At the restitution hearing, the victim’s safety compliance administrator testified about the
repair estimate, final repair cost, and towing charges, and
the state introduced a written estimate for the repairs.
Although a more detailed estimate would have made the
factfinder’s evaluation easier, the repair estimate, which
referenced third-party software and included information
about the replacement parts, types of supplies and labor,
and corresponding hourly rates, was sufficient under our
caselaw. In addition, defendant entered photographs of
the damaged van into evidence and the safety compliance
administrator testified that the victim is self-insured and
owns more than 150 vans in the area. Considering all the
evidence, a rational factfinder could infer that the victim
had experience obtaining repair services at market rates
and did so here. Accordingly, the state presented evidence
from which a factfinder could conclude that the repair cost
was reasonable.

         In the alternative, defendant contends that even if
we conclude that the repair estimate was reasonable, the
state did not prove that the final repair cost was reasonable. We disagree. A victim is entitled to “the full amount of
the victim’s economic damages as determined by the court.”
ORS 137.106(1)(a). The trial court viewed photographs of
the damaged van, considered the estimate which totaled
$14,945.31, and heard testimony that the final repairs cost
$15,262.94. That evidence is sufficient for a factfinder to
infer that the difference between the repair estimate and
final cost was reasonable.
302                                              State v. Rios

        Towing Charge
        Defendant also argues that the towing charge was
not necessary. At the restitution hearing, the victim’s safety
compliance administrator testified that the van could not be
driven after the collision. That testimony and the evidence
discussed above allow a rational factfinder to find that the
victim necessarily incurred the towing charge.
         The trial court did not err when it awarded $15,461.92
for the victim’s van repairs and towing charge. The judgment
of the trial court is affirmed.
        Affirmed.