F-2012-212
In OCCA case No. F-2012-212, Bryce Andrew Davis appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering restitution, and they remanded the case for modification of the restitution order. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Bryce Andrew Davis entered a plea to the crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery against a minor at a Walmart store. The minor suffered serious injuries, including a crushed cheekbone and an orbital wall fracture, needing significant medical treatment. After Davis completed a rehabilitation program, a hearing was held to determine the amount of restitution he would have to pay to cover the victim's expenses. The court ordered Davis to pay a total of $30,528.43 in restitution, which was meant to cover the victim's medical expenses, lost wages of his parents due to caring for him, travel costs for doctor visits, and fees for copying records. However, Davis argued that the restitution amount was too high and that the court had exceeded its authority by not limiting the amount to the actual economic loss suffered by the victim. The law states that restitution is only supposed to cover actual financial detriment suffered by the victim, meaning help for their real costs like medical bills that have to be paid out of pocket. Davis pointed out that the amount awarded to the victim included expenses that were not certain, such as lost wages for the victim's father and future medical costs. After reviewing the evidence and the court's decisions, the appellate court found that the trial court did not calculate the restitution correctly. They realized that the court had used the total medical bills before insurance adjustments, which was not allowed. Instead, they should have calculated the actual amount paid by the family, which was much lower. The court modified the restitution order to reflect three times the actual economic damage for medical costs, reducing that portion of the restitution significantly. They also struck down the father's lost wages because there was not enough proof to support the amount claimed. The future medical costs award was also removed because they were too uncertain and speculative. The decision outlined the need for a clear basis for any loss that a victim claims, stating that the evidence must be strong enough to establish real losses. The court upheld other parts of the restitution order, which were justified. In summary, the court found that while the victim suffered injuries and needed help, the original calculations for restitution went beyond what was allowed by law, leading to significant modifications in the amount that Davis would have to pay. They ordered adjustments to ensure that restitution reflected actual, proven losses.