State of Louisiana v. Yashica S. Bickham

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 2, 2024
• Docket: 2023-KA-0711
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-KA-0711

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

YASHICA S. BICKHAM * FOURTH CIRCUIT

* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*

* *******

SCJ Jenkins, J. dissents and assigns reasons

I would affirm the trial court’s restitution judgment for the following

reasons.

“Louisiana courts have held that ‘[a] trial court has vast discretion in

sentencing decisions, including the ordering of restitution.’” State v. Walker, 15-

1026, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/6/16), 192 So.3d 813, 818. La. C.Cr.P. art. 895.1

provides in pertinent part as follows:

A. (1) When a court places the defendant on probation, it shall, as a condition of probation, order the payment of restitution in cases where the victim or his family has suffered any direct loss of actual cash, any monetary loss pursuant to damage to or loss of property, or medical expense. The court shall order restitution in a reasonable sum not to exceed the actual pecuniary loss to the victim in an amount certain. However, any additional or other damages sought by the victim and available under the law shall be pursued in an action separate from the establishment of the restitution order as a civil money judgment provided for in Subparagraph (2) of this Paragraph. …

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in granting any restitution

because Ms. Curtis did not repair the damage to her car and, therefore, she did not

suffer any pecuniary loss. However, the jurisprudence does not require that the

victim spend the money to repair the damages suffered in order to receive

restitution. Here, as in Walker, the trial court heard testimony regarding what Ms. Curtis

paid for the vehicle only months prior to the incident ($2000), reviewed the

adjustment damages certificate from the insurance company ($3700), and

considered the Kelly Blue Book value for that specific vehicle (range from approx.

$2500-3200), and arrived at a reasonable sum of $2500 for the damages to the

victim’s property. Given the vast discretion afforded the trial court in its

sentencing decisions, including the ordering of restitution, I find no error in the

trial court’s decision.