THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY Clyde H. Perdue, Jr.,
P. Hunt, III (Davis, Davis, Davis, & Davis, on brief),
A. Curry, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Petty, O'Brien and Russell Argued at
GRACE O'BRIEN JUDGE.
Marie Fleisher ("appellant") was convicted of
felony unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of
Code § 18.2-102. She contends that the court abused its
discretion by imposing a sentence which included an amount of
restitution that exceeded the loss "caused by the
offense." Finding no error, we affirm.
20, 2017, appellant and the victim became involved in an
argument at a residence in Franklin County. Appellant took
the keys to the victim's Hyundai Santa Fe and drove away
in the vehicle. She did not have permission to take the car.
The Hyundai was recovered several days later in Roanoke.
However, the victim's purse, which was in the car when
appellant took it, was missing. The victim reported that the
purse contained $300 in cash and keys to her other vehicle, a
was charged with felony unauthorized use of a motor vehicle
and entered a no contest plea, pursuant to a plea
agreement. The plea agreement provided that appellant
would pay restitution "in an amount to be determined by
the [c]ourt after hearing evidence on the matter." The
court accepted the plea agreement. In the conviction order,
the court sentenced appellant to a term of incarceration in
the state penitentiary and suspended the sentence
conditioned, in part, on a period of supervised probation and
payment of restitution in an amount "[t]o be
subsequent restitution hearing, appellant testified that she
left the keys in the unlocked vehicle when she abandoned it.
The Commonwealth presented evidence that the victim never
recovered her purse, its contents, or any keys. The victim
explained that although she had spare keys to both the
Hyundai and the Toyota, she wanted the door locks to both
vehicles changed because she was "worried that whoever
stole [her] purse and has [the] Toyota key is going to come
[and] track it down . . . and drive off with [her] car."
At the time of the hearing, the victim was securing her
Toyota with a steering wheel lock.
Commonwealth presented an estimate from a Hyundai dealership
that reflected the cost of replacing the keys and locks. The
cost was $358 for the "key & cyli[nder]," $360
for labor, and $38 in sales tax, for a total cost of $756.
Appellant conceded that she was responsible for $358 in
Commonwealth also introduced an estimate from a Toyota
dealership reflecting the cost of ordering new keys,
replacing lock cylinders on the doors, and reprogramming the
computer inside that vehicle. In an email, a Toyota
representative explained that "they have to completely
redo the computer" to accept new keys so that "old
keys will then no longer work at all to open or start the
vehicle." The total estimate for redoing the
key-and-lock system was $2367. The cost merely to replace the
lost key was $208 plus $122 for limited programming labor.
Appellant argued that she should only be responsible for the
cost of replacing the lost key, not the cost of changing the
locks and completely reprogramming the computer.
conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered appellant to pay
$3423 in restitution. The total included the $300 cash that
was taken, $756 in costs related to the Hyundai, and $2367 in
costs related to the Toyota. The court explained
"[t]hat's [for] the keys and for her to be able to
redo the locks. The keys are out there, she doesn't ...