Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Sutton v. State

Sutton v. State

378 S.E.2d 491, 190 Ga. App. 56, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 116
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 26, 1989
Docket77447
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 378 S.E.2d 491 (Sutton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sutton v. State, 378 S.E.2d 491, 190 Ga. App. 56, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 116 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Beasley, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions of theft by receiving stolen property, OCGA § 16-8-7, and carrying a concealed weapon, OCGA § 16-11-126. His sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $3,108.

The trial court failed to enter written findings of fact concerning the factors specified in OCGA § 17-14-10, Garrett v. State, 175 Ga. App. 400, 401 (1) (333 SE2d 432) (1985), but defendant has not raised this issue which will therefore not be considered. Morrison v. State, 181 Ga. App. 400, 441 (352 SE2d 622) (1987).

The subject of theft by receiving was a truck owned by the victim *57 and insured by Prudential Insurance Company. Prudential paid the victim $6,302 for the vehicle and $450 as rental reimbursement. After the truck was recovered, it was auctioned for salvage in the amount of $3,894. The order to pay restitution awarded $250 to the victim, which was the amount of the insurance deductible, and $2,858 to Prudential, which constituted the difference between the amount it paid the victim, $6,752, and the amount it received for the truck as salvage.

Defendant contends the evidence does not support the award of restitution because: 1) there was no showing as to the market value of the truck and no basis to credit the value assigned, in that there was a large discrepancy resulting from the difference at which it was valued and the amount it brought at auction; 2) the $450 rental reimbursement was not recoverable since one cannot claim as damages both the actual market value of a vehicle and rental for loss of use; 3) there was no evidence that $250 was deducted from the amount of the victim’s recovery from Prudential.

1. An employee of Prudential testified that the value assigned to the truck was based upon a consideration of the fair market value of a truck of comparable age and condition, utilizing a survey predicated on representative samples. He noted that the value received from the auction resulted from the “forced sale” nature of the transaction. We discern no violation of OCGA § 17-14-9 which limits the amount of restitution to not more than the victim’s damages.

2. The $450 rental reimbursement was properly included in the amount of restitution although in a suit for damages to a vehicle one cannot ordinarily recover an amount in excess of the fair market value of the vehicle before it was damaged. Lamon v. Perry, 33 Ga. App. 248, 249 (125 SE 907) (1924).

“ ‘Damages’ means all damages which a victim could recover against an offender in a civil action.” OCGA § 17-14-2 (2). “[T]he statutory scheme requires the court to determine what type of civil action could be maintained by the victim, and to determine what the proper measure of damages would be in such a civil action.” Garrett, supra at 404. The victim could maintain an action for conversion. Under that legal theory recovery of the value of the vehicle plus hire was permitted, even though the amount for rental might exceed the value of the property converted. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Spicer, 156 Ga. App. 541, 542 (5) (275 SE2d 116) (1980). Accord General Fin. Corp. of Ga. v. Henderson, 160 Ga. App. 242 (286 SE2d 454) (1981).

3. There was no evidence that $250 was deducted from the amount tendered to the victim by Prudential. Prudential’s employee testified that $6,752 (including $6,302 as market value of the truck and $450 rental reimbursement) was paid to the victim. Although the State argues that the record reveals that there was a $250 deductible *58 under the policy and one would reasonably assume that the insurance company would not offer a gratuity to the victim, such an assumption cannot serve as a replacement for evidence. This amount is not sustainable.

Decided January 26, 1989. John 0. Ellis, Jr., for appellant. Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Patricia G. Higginbotham, Barbara B. Conroy, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

The judgment imposing restitution is affirmed on condition that the amount of $250 be eliminated; otherwise reversed.

Judgment affirmed on condition.

Banke, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Interest Of: R. H.
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012
Austin v. State
727 S.E.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
John Austin v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012
Browning v. State
695 S.E.2d 291 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Hawthorne v. State
648 S.E.2d 387 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)
Gray v. State
615 S.E.2d 834 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
State v. Tupa
2005 ND 25 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2005)
Jackson v. State
552 S.E.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Fewox v. State
534 S.E.2d 121 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Gaskin v. State
470 S.E.2d 531 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
In the Interest of C. B.
470 S.E.2d 493 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Rogers v. State
435 S.E.2d 457 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
State v. Ellis
838 P.2d 1310 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1992)
Hodges v. State
411 S.E.2d 775 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)
Lomax v. State
407 S.E.2d 462 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
378 S.E.2d 491, 190 Ga. App. 56, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-state-gactapp-1989.