JEFFERSON v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Guy Jefferson appeals from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of battery resulting in substantial bodily harm and conspiracy to commit robbery. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas W. Herndon, Judge.

Jefferson contends the district court erred by imposing restitution based on unreliable and inaccurate evidence. Restitution is a sentencing decision, Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 12, 974 P.2d 133, 135 (1999), which we review for an abuse of discretion. Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348, 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court’s decision is arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason.” Crawford v. State, 121 Nev. 744, 748, 121 P.3d 582, 585 (2005) (quotation marks omitted). In determining the appropriate amount of restitution, a district court must rely on reliable and accurate information. Martinez, 115 Nev. at 12-13, 974 P.2d at 135.

Jefferson does not challenge the accuracy of the bills or dispute that they were for medical care that was a direct result of his crimes. Rather, he argues the victim’s medical bills were not reliable and accurate evidence of restitution because some were several months old and he speculates the hospital may not have ultimately required the victim to pay the bills. “Crime victims’ unpaid medical bills are debts of those victims,” and the district court may properly order a defendant to pay “the victims’ medical bills that directly resulted from appellant’s criminal conduct.” Id. at 11, 974 P.2d at 134 (emphasis added). The victim’s medical bills were reliable and accurate evidence of the restitution amount, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on them in imposing restitution. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.