Mayfield v. State

Elizabeth Mayfield pleaded guilty to arson in the first degree and was sentenced to fifteen years, one to serve, with the balance on probation. Following a hearing on the matter, she was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $28,299.38 to Christopher Kanche. She appeals only the award of restitution and argues that the trial court failed to make specific written findings on the relevant factors, that the evidence was insufficient to show Kanche was the person to whom restitution was owed, and that the evidence was otherwise insufficient to establish the amount of the award. 1. With regard to the form of the court’s findings, this Court has held that a court or other ordering authority is “no longer required to make written findings when ordering an offender to make restitution.” McCart v. State , 289 Ga. App. 830, 832 1 658 SE2d 465 2008. Accordingly, Mayfield’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to make written findings of fact is without merit.

2. Mayfield contends the evidence was insufficient to support the award. “The proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the ordering authority by the preponderance of the evidence.” OCGA § 17-14-7 b. And “the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense shall be on the state.” Id. “On review of a restitution order, the appellate court has the duty of reviewing the transcript to determine whether each party has met his or her specified burden and determining whether a restitution award was supported by the preponderance of the evidence.” Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted. McClure v. State, 295 Ga. App. 465, 466 673 SE2d 856 2009.