|
|
Browning v. State
Court of
Appeals of Indiana
2007 WL 1805918
UNPUBLISHED
June 25, 2007
Summary of
Opinion
The Brownings
were charged with
32 counts of animal cruelty. Following
five convictions the court ordered them to pay $11,000.00 in addition
to the
fine to cover the cost of boarding and veterinary care.
They appeal saying the statute does not
authorize restitution. This court
disagrees.
Text of Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION-NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Lisa and Ronald Browning
(the “Brownings”) appeal the trial court's restitution order to pay
livestock
boarding fees following their five Class B misdemeanor cruelty to
animalconvictions. The Brownings claim the
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Brownings were each
charged with 32 counts of cruelty to an animal and convicted of five
counts for
their failure to provide adequate nutrition and veterinary care to
their horses and cattle. As a result of the
Browning's cruelty,
The trial court ordered that the Brownings each pay a $2,500 fine and that they together reimburse the county for $11,800 as restitution equal to the boarding and veterinary costs for the seized animals related to their convictions. The Brownings moved to correct error, but the trial court denied the motion. The Brownings now appeal.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
The Brownings claim that
IC 35-46-3-6 provides in part:
(h) If a person is convicted of an offense [e.g. cruelty to an animal], the court may impose the following additional penalties against the person:
(1) A requirement that the person pay the costs of caring for an animal involved in the offenses that are incurred during a period of impoundment authorized under subsection (b).
(2) An order terminating the person's right to possession, title, custody, or care of an animal that was involved in the offense.
In Lykins
v. State,
726 N.E.2d 1265, 1271-72 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), we
held that the trial court did not err in ordering the defendant to pay
for the
labor and material costs paid by the county to build new stables and
cover
veterinarian bills following his convictions for cruelty to his horses.
FN2. IC 35-50-5-3 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (i) or (j), in addition to any sentence imposed under this article for a felony or misdemeanor, the court may, as a condition of probation or without placing the person on probation, order the person to make restitution to the victim of the crime, the victim's estate, or the family of a victim who is deceased. The court shall base its restitution order upon a consideration of:
(1) property damages of the victim incurred as a result of the crime, based on the actual cost of repair (or replacement if repair is inappropriate);
(2) medical and hospital costs incurred by the victim (before the date of sentencing) as a result of the crime;
(3) the cost of medical laboratory tests to determine if the crime has caused the victim to contract a disease or other medical condition;
(4) earnings lost by the victim (before the date of sentencing) as a result of the crime including earnings lost while the victim was hospitalized or participating in the investigation or trial of the crime; and
(5) funeral, burial, or cremation costs incurred by the family or estate of a homicide victim as a result of the crime.
permits the imposition of
restitution in this case, reading the restitution statute in
conjunction with
the cruelty to animal's penalties statute, IC
35-46-3-6, it is clear the legislature
intended
those responsible pay for their cruelty. See Sanders
v. State,
466 N.E.2d 424, 428 (Ind.1984) (When
one statute
deals in general terms and another in specific terms, they should be
harmonized
if possible.). It is equally clear that the Brownings only pay the
expenses for
those crimes for which they were convicted. Kinkead
v. State,
791 N.E.2d 243, 245 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)
(absent
agreement, trial court may not order restitution in amount greater than
what is
attributable to the convictions). The trial court had authority to
impose
restitution to recover
Affirmed