 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Blanton11/5/1992
Appellant/defendant James L. Blanton (appellant) contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering restitution to the insurance carrier that settled a wrongful death action arising from the criminal conduct of appellant and by ordering restitution for certain funeral expenses. We disagree and affirm.
I.
On October 27, 1989, appellant was involved in a one-car accident in which appellant's passenger, Stephen Thomas (Thomas) was killed. Witnesses saw appellant's vehicle speeding and swerving prior to the accident. Appellant's blood alcohol content was .12.
On February 5, 1991, a grand jury indicted appellant on one count of manslaughter, a class 3 felony. On June 19, 1991, pursuant to a written plea agreement, appellant plead guilty to negligent homicide, a class 4 felony. The plea agreement contained no stipulation as to the sentence, but required that appellant pay restitution to the victim.
At sentencing on July 17, 1991, the trial court placed appellant on four years probation with six months incarceration in the Maricopa County jail. The trial court also required appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $92,349.75. The restitution consisted of $85,000.00 to American Family Life Insurance (American Family) for funding the settlement in a wrongful death action brought against appellant, $5,499.75 to American Family for payment of funeral expenses, and $1,850.00 to Thomas' parents for payment of additional funeral expenses, including a headstone, flowers, chapel music, minister's honorarium, and chapel fee.
On October 4, 1991, the trial court conducted a restitution hearing at appellant's request. At the Conclusion of the hearing, the trial court modified its earlier order and increased the total restitution to $92,575.75 due to documentation of additional funeral expenses paid by Thomas' parents.
Appellant appeals from the judgment and July 17, 1991 sentence and from the October 4, 1991 restitution order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") §§ 12-120.21 A, 13-4031, and -4033.
II.
The trial court has broad discretion in sentencing. State v. Stotts, 144 Ariz. 72, 87, 695 P.2d 1110, 1125 (1985). A reviewing court will not find an abuse of discretion in sentencing unless the decision is characterized by arbitrariness, capriciousness, or failure to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to sentencing. Id.
A.
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring him to pay restitution to American Family, Thomas' underinsured motorist carrier. Before appellant plead guilty in this case, Thomas' heirs brought a wrongful death action in Nebraska. Pursuant to a negotiated settlement, Thomas' three minor children received $100,000. The settlement agreement distributed the money in four equal parts among the three children and their lawyer.
In accord with Nebraska law, $15,000 from appellant's insurer, already paid to the Thomas estate, was subtracted from the total settlement amount, leaving $85,000 to be paid by American Family to settle the action. Additionally, American Family paid $5,499.75 in funeral expenses from its med-pay coverage.
1.
Appellant concedes that he may have been liable to make restitution to Thomas' heirs pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-603 C and 13-804. He argues, however, that this obligation was discharged when Thomas' heirs settled their wrongful death claim with appellant's
Page 1 2 3 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|