Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Laura Sanders v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-12-01186-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 3, 2014; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Laura Sanders appeals her conviction for driving while intoxicated, resulting in a jury finding her guilty and the trial court imposing a 180-day confinement sentence, probated for twenty-four months, along with a $750 fine. The court ordered her to pay $7,000 in restitution to victim Samantha Lewis. Sanders raises six points of error, including claims of improper admission of evidence and expert witnesses due to the State's noncompliance with discovery orders, and challenges the restitution order. The appellate court abates the appeal specifically concerning the restitution issue and remands the case for a new determination of the restitution amount. The incident occurred on February 8, 2010, when Lewis observed Sanders driving erratically on the Dallas North Tollway, leading to a collision that totaled Lewis's vehicle and resulted in injuries requiring medical attention. Lewis testified to over $16,000 in damages, including car repairs and medical expenses, emphasizing that her insurance did not cover damages from another driver and that Sanders was uninsured. Although Sanders presented an insurance card indicating coverage, the court ordered $7,000 in restitution, contingent upon Sanders' insurance not paying Lewis. Sanders contests this restitution order as part of her appeal. Appellant challenges the restitution amount ordered by the trial court, asserting it lacks a factual basis in the record. Although this argument wasn't raised at trial, courts typically permit defendants to contest evidentiary sufficiency on appeal. According to Texas law, a court may order restitution to victims, covering losses or property damage incurred due to a crime. The restitution must be just and based on the victim’s actual loss, with the State responsible for proving the loss by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the victim, Lewis, claimed over $16,000 in expenses related to an accident, but failed to provide evidence supporting this figure or the value of her damaged car. For restitution involving property loss, the law requires valuation based on the property's worth at the time of loss or sentencing, not repair costs. The evidence presented did not substantiate the $7,000 restitution order, leading to the conclusion that it lacks a factual basis. The appropriate course of action for unsupported restitution amounts is to abate the appeal, set aside the restitution order, and remand for a new hearing to determine a just amount. Consequently, the appeal is abated, the restitution amount is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.