IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 86396-7-I
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BRYCE JOSEPH LACASSE,
Appellant.
BOWMAN, A.C.J. — Bryce Joseph Lacasse appeals the trial court’s
amended judgment and sentence. He argues that the court erred by ordering
restitution for a dismissed burglary charge and by imposing interest on the total
amount of restitution. He also argues, and the State concedes, that the judgment
and sentence contains clerical errors. We affirm the restitution order but remand
for the trial court to correct the clerical errors in the judgment and sentence.
FACTS
On September 7, 2023, Lacasse pleaded guilty to second degree theft
and attempting to elude a police vehicle. As part of the plea agreement, the trial
court dismissed several charges under five other cause numbers. Still, the court
ordered that Lacasse “pay for restitution on all dismissed counts.”1
1 At sentencing, the court specifically ordered Lacasse to pay $2,224.25 in restitution related to the second degree theft conviction and interest on the total restitution obligations. The schedule of restitution provided that “[r]estitution may be amended at a future date should there be additional damages, loss or medical claims.” The court waived the other legal financial obligations, including the victim assessment fee and criminal filing fee. No. 86396-7-I/2
One of the counts dismissed as part of the plea agreement was for second
degree burglary under Whatcom County cause number 21-1-00879-37.2 A
probable cause affidavit3 submitted in support of that charge shows that in
January 2020, Farid Poormokhtar reported that someone burglarized a locked
storage container on his vacation property. The affidavit states that Poormokhtar
hired Lacasse and Desiree Atchley to “clean up” his property. And that
Poormokhtar and Lacasse had a conflict “over exorbitant rates [Lacasse]
charged without accomplishing any work.”
During this time, Poormokhtar noticed that someone had moved his
surveillance cameras and took their memory cards. Then he discovered that
someone stole an antique wood-fired cook stove and new Stihl chainsaws from
the storage container. The probable cause affidavit states that “[n]umerous other
items were also stolen from the [storage] container.” Poormokhtar suspected
that Lacasse stole the items. And Atchley later “hinted” that Lacasse “might be
involved.”
In February 2021, an officer investigating an unrelated crime found an
antique cook stove that matched Poormokhtar’s photos of his stolen stove. The
person in possession of the stove said Lacasse sold him the stove “along with a
Stihl chainsaw.” Whatcom County deputies arrested Lacasse for second degree
2 The judgment and sentence incorrectly states that the cause number is 20-1- 879-37. 3 The State moved for leave to supplement the appellate record with this probable cause affidavit. Because the record “is not sufficiently complete to permit a decision on the merits of the issues” without the affidavit, we grant the State’s motion. See RAP 9.10.
2 No. 86396-7-I/3
burglary and first degree trafficking in stolen property. And in December 2021,
Poormokhtar submitted a restitution claim, seeking restitution for over 30 stolen
items valued at $7,356.4
On January 16, 2024, the State moved to amend the schedule of
restitution for Lacasse’s current convictions and order him to pay Poormokhtar
$7,356 in restitution for the dismissed burglary charge. On February 13, the trial
court held a restitution hearing, at which Poormokhtar testified.
Poormokhtar said all the items listed in his restitution claim went missing
after the incident. But he also testified that about a month had passed between
when he saw the property undisturbed and when he realized the items were
missing. When asked about other people’s access to his property, Poormokhtar
said, “Obviously, people can open the gate and go in,” but “I don’t think anybody,
you know, related to my friends or family are going to go there.” He said that
although someone took the cameras from his property, he had a picture of “some
truck . . . coming” before the cameras were disabled.
Lacasse asked the trial court to deny the State’s motion to amend the
restitution order, arguing that except for the antique stove, it failed to show a
causal connection between Lacasse’s burglary and the missing items. The trial
court granted the State’s motion and amended Lacasse’s judgment and sentence
to add $7,356.00 in restitution, for a total restitution amount of $9,580.25.
Lacasse appeals.5
4 The list included camping equipment, a wood chipper shredder, drills, chainsaws, and several other power tools. 5 The trial court found Lacasse indigent for the purpose of appeal.
3 No. 86396-7-I/4
ANALYSIS
Lacasse challenges the restitution amount imposed for the dismissed
burglary charge and several clerical errors in the judgment and sentence.
1. Restitution
Lacasse argues the trial court erred by imposing $7,356 in restitution for
the dismissed burglary charge because there was an insufficient causal
connection between the claimed losses and his criminal conduct. We disagree.
We review the amount of a restitution award for abuse of discretion. State
v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960, 965, 195 P.3d 506 (2008). A trial court abuses its
discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable
grounds or reasons. State v. Dye, 178 Wn.2d 541, 548, 309 P.3d 1192 (2013).
We review a trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Griffith, 164
Wn.2d at 965.
A court’s authority to impose restitution is statutory. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d at
965. A court must order restitution when the defendant “is convicted of an
offense which results in injury to any person or damage to or loss of property.”
RCW 9.94A.753(5). It must also order restitution if the defendant “pleads guilty
to a lesser offense or fewer offenses and agrees with the prosecutor’s
recommendation that [he] be required to pay restitution to a victim of an offense
. . . which [is] not prosecuted pursuant to a plea agreement.” Id.
A court may order restitution only for losses that are “ ‘causally connected’
to the crimes charged.” State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517, 524, 166 P.3d 1167
(2007) (quoting State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272, 286, 119 P.3d 350 (2005)).
4 No. 86396-7-I/5
“Losses are causally connected if, but for the charged crime, the victim would not
have incurred the loss.” Griffith, 164 Wn.2d at 966. To determine whether a
causal connection exists, we look to the underlying facts of the charged offense.
Id. If the defendant challenges the restitution amount that the State seeks, the
State must prove causation and damages by a preponderance of the evidence.
State v. Romish, 7 Wn. App. 2d 510, 549, 434 P.3d 546 (2019). Only after the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 86396-7-I
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BRYCE JOSEPH LACASSE,
Appellant.
BOWMAN, A.C.J. — Bryce Joseph Lacasse appeals the trial court’s
amended judgment and sentence. He argues that the court erred by ordering
restitution for a dismissed burglary charge and by imposing interest on the total
amount of restitution. He also argues, and the State concedes, that the judgment
and sentence contains clerical errors. We affirm the restitution order but remand
for the trial court to correct the clerical errors in the judgment and sentence.
FACTS
On September 7, 2023, Lacasse pleaded guilty to second degree theft
and attempting to elude a police vehicle. As part of the plea agreement, the trial
court dismissed several charges under five other cause numbers. Still, the court
ordered that Lacasse “pay for restitution on all dismissed counts.”1
1 At sentencing, the court specifically ordered Lacasse to pay $2,224.25 in restitution related to the second degree theft conviction and interest on the total restitution obligations. The schedule of restitution provided that “[r]estitution may be amended at a future date should there be additional damages, loss or medical claims.” The court waived the other legal financial obligations, including the victim assessment fee and criminal filing fee. No. 86396-7-I/2
One of the counts dismissed as part of the plea agreement was for second
degree burglary under Whatcom County cause number 21-1-00879-37.2 A
probable cause affidavit3 submitted in support of that charge shows that in
January 2020, Farid Poormokhtar reported that someone burglarized a locked
storage container on his vacation property. The affidavit states that Poormokhtar
hired Lacasse and Desiree Atchley to “clean up” his property. And that
Poormokhtar and Lacasse had a conflict “over exorbitant rates [Lacasse]
charged without accomplishing any work.”
During this time, Poormokhtar noticed that someone had moved his
surveillance cameras and took their memory cards. Then he discovered that
someone stole an antique wood-fired cook stove and new Stihl chainsaws from
the storage container. The probable cause affidavit states that “[n]umerous other
items were also stolen from the [storage] container.” Poormokhtar suspected
that Lacasse stole the items. And Atchley later “hinted” that Lacasse “might be
involved.”
In February 2021, an officer investigating an unrelated crime found an
antique cook stove that matched Poormokhtar’s photos of his stolen stove. The
person in possession of the stove said Lacasse sold him the stove “along with a
Stihl chainsaw.” Whatcom County deputies arrested Lacasse for second degree
2 The judgment and sentence incorrectly states that the cause number is 20-1- 879-37. 3 The State moved for leave to supplement the appellate record with this probable cause affidavit. Because the record “is not sufficiently complete to permit a decision on the merits of the issues” without the affidavit, we grant the State’s motion. See RAP 9.10.
2 No. 86396-7-I/3
burglary and first degree trafficking in stolen property. And in December 2021,
Poormokhtar submitted a restitution claim, seeking restitution for over 30 stolen
items valued at $7,356.4
On January 16, 2024, the State moved to amend the schedule of
restitution for Lacasse’s current convictions and order him to pay Poormokhtar
$7,356 in restitution for the dismissed burglary charge. On February 13, the trial
court held a restitution hearing, at which Poormokhtar testified.
Poormokhtar said all the items listed in his restitution claim went missing
after the incident. But he also testified that about a month had passed between
when he saw the property undisturbed and when he realized the items were
missing. When asked about other people’s access to his property, Poormokhtar
said, “Obviously, people can open the gate and go in,” but “I don’t think anybody,
you know, related to my friends or family are going to go there.” He said that
although someone took the cameras from his property, he had a picture of “some
truck . . . coming” before the cameras were disabled.
Lacasse asked the trial court to deny the State’s motion to amend the
restitution order, arguing that except for the antique stove, it failed to show a
causal connection between Lacasse’s burglary and the missing items. The trial
court granted the State’s motion and amended Lacasse’s judgment and sentence
to add $7,356.00 in restitution, for a total restitution amount of $9,580.25.
Lacasse appeals.5
4 The list included camping equipment, a wood chipper shredder, drills, chainsaws, and several other power tools. 5 The trial court found Lacasse indigent for the purpose of appeal.
3 No. 86396-7-I/4
ANALYSIS
Lacasse challenges the restitution amount imposed for the dismissed
burglary charge and several clerical errors in the judgment and sentence.
1. Restitution
Lacasse argues the trial court erred by imposing $7,356 in restitution for
the dismissed burglary charge because there was an insufficient causal
connection between the claimed losses and his criminal conduct. We disagree.
We review the amount of a restitution award for abuse of discretion. State
v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960, 965, 195 P.3d 506 (2008). A trial court abuses its
discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable
grounds or reasons. State v. Dye, 178 Wn.2d 541, 548, 309 P.3d 1192 (2013).
We review a trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Griffith, 164
Wn.2d at 965.
A court’s authority to impose restitution is statutory. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d at
965. A court must order restitution when the defendant “is convicted of an
offense which results in injury to any person or damage to or loss of property.”
RCW 9.94A.753(5). It must also order restitution if the defendant “pleads guilty
to a lesser offense or fewer offenses and agrees with the prosecutor’s
recommendation that [he] be required to pay restitution to a victim of an offense
. . . which [is] not prosecuted pursuant to a plea agreement.” Id.
A court may order restitution only for losses that are “ ‘causally connected’
to the crimes charged.” State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517, 524, 166 P.3d 1167
(2007) (quoting State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272, 286, 119 P.3d 350 (2005)).
4 No. 86396-7-I/5
“Losses are causally connected if, but for the charged crime, the victim would not
have incurred the loss.” Griffith, 164 Wn.2d at 966. To determine whether a
causal connection exists, we look to the underlying facts of the charged offense.
Id. If the defendant challenges the restitution amount that the State seeks, the
State must prove causation and damages by a preponderance of the evidence.
State v. Romish, 7 Wn. App. 2d 510, 549, 434 P.3d 546 (2019). Only after the
State establishes a causal connection “does the sentencing court gain broad
discretion to order restitution amounts within the statutory limits.” Id.
Here, Lacasse agreed to pay restitution for the dismissed second degree
burglary charge in cause number 21-1-00879-37. The probable cause affidavit
states that along with the antique cook stove and chainsaws, “[n]umerous other
items were . . . stolen from the [storage] container” during the burglary. And
Poormokhtar submitted a restitution claim identifying the other stolen items and
their estimated total value of $7,356. At the restitution hearing, Poormokhtar
testified that all the items he identified went missing after the burglary. So, the
State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that but for the burglary,
Poormokhtar would not have incurred the losses.
Lacasse argues that under Griffith, Poormokhtar’s losses were not
causally connected to the burglary. In that case, the defendant Griffith sold
several pieces of jewelry that had been stolen in a burglary, and she later
pleaded guilty to possessing stolen property in the second degree. Griffith, 164
Wn.2d at 963-64. The trial court ordered her to pay $11,500 in restitution for all
the unrecovered jewelry. Id. at 964. Our Supreme Court vacated the restitution
5 No. 86396-7-I/6
order, determining there was no causal connection between the crime and the
losses because Griffith was convicted of possessing stolen property, and there
was no evidence that she actually possessed $11,500 worth of the unrecovered
property. Id. at 966-68.
This case is not like Griffith. Here, the State charged Lacasse with second
degree burglary, not with possession of stolen property. While a defendant
convicted of possessing stolen property “is responsible only for damage actually
sustained during the course of [their] possession,” a “thief is responsible for all
damages incurred in connection to the victim’s loss of property.” Romish, 7 Wn.
App. 2d at 515-16. So, the court could order Lacasse to pay restitution for any
losses the State showed resulted from the burglary. And Poormokhtar identified
the specific items stolen from his storage container.6
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by amending the judgment and
sentence to impose $7,356 in restitution for the dismissed burglary charge.
2. Clerical Errors
Lacasse argues, and the State concedes, that the court’s judgment and
sentence contains several clerical errors. The remedy for clerical errors in a
judgment and sentence is to remand to the trial court for correction. State v.
Sullivan, 3 Wn. App. 2d 376, 381, 415 P.3d 1261 (2018).
6 While Lacasse points out that Poormokhtar testified that about a month had passed between the time of the burglary and when he discovered the items were missing, that testimony goes to the weight of the evidence. And we defer to the trial court on the weight of the evidence. See State v. Jackson, 145 Wn. App. 814, 818, 187 P.3d 321 (2008).
6 No. 86396-7-I/7
Lacasse’s judgment and sentence misstates that second degree theft is
a class B felony instead of a class C felony. See RCW 9A.56.040(2). It also
incorrectly states that the maximum sentence for second degree theft is 10 years’
confinement and/or a $20,000 fine. It should say that the maximum sentence is
5 years and/or a $10,000 fine. See RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c). And finally, the
judgment and sentence improperly states that the attempt to elude statute is
RCW 46.64.024 instead of RCW 46.61.024. We remand for the trial court to
correct these clerical errors in the judgment and sentence.7
We affirm the restitution order but remand for the trial court to correct the
clerical errors in the judgment and sentence.
WE CONCUR:
7 Lacasse also argues that his attorney performed deficiently by not moving the trial court to waive interest on the restitution imposed. Because we remand on other grounds, we authorize Lacasse to move the court to waive interest on restitution under RCW 10.82.090(2).