COA rejects challenges to discretionary restitution order and affirms
State v. Tate H. Batson, 2025AP136-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Batson tries his best to poke holes in the judge’s discretionary decision, the deferential standard of review means those arguments uniformly fail.
Batson was arrested in the act of burglarizing a residence. (¶2). He pleaded to an amended charge of criminal damage to property (as well as resisting an officer) relating to damages caused during that criminal activity. (Id.). The property owner claimed numerous losses and explained at the restitution hearing that Batson and his accomplice had caused significant damage to the property, including ripping the door off the refrigerator, ripping cabinet doors off, etc. (¶5). As a result, the owner explained that he performed $3,800 dollars worth of repairs (among other losses not challenged on appeal). (Id.).
On appeal, Batson argues that the circuit court erred in granting that request because the property owner failed to adequately document how he arrived at the $3,800 figure. (¶12). However, the owner’s testimony on this point was found credible by the circuit court and was corroborated by at least some supporting documentation. (¶13). COA declines to require more precise itemization requirements and affirms. (Id.).
The owner also requested and received $1,954.01 in restitution relating to other repair costs. (¶14). On appeal, Batson claims that the testimony in support of that request revealed a potential inconsistency, as the testimony could be read to support a slightly lower figure. (Id.). At the very least, Batson claims the number ordered by the circuit court is “arbitrary.” (Id.). COA rejects this argument as well, because the owner requested the ordered amount in his testimony and any discrepancy in the evidence was impliedly resolved in favor of the owner via the circuit court’s credibility finding. (¶15).
Finally, the circuit court rejects Batson’s attempts to argue that the circuit court erred in finding that Batson had ability to pay restitution, finding there was nothing clearly erroneous about the court’s order which properly considered Batson’s future earning ability based on evidence in the record.