In addition to assailing the evidence supporting the restitution award as a whole, appellant also contends that the restitution order includes an award representing value of the stolen emerald necklace (item 39 in the Appraisal Report). He points out that the emerald strand of beads was recovered from Gemrush and that only the large emerald stone was still missing. Appellant argues that the amount awarded by the court for restitution for item 39 – $22,000 – reflects the value of the entire necklace rather than the value of the missing stone. Appellant maintains that he is only responsible for restitution for the missing emerald, not the complete emerald necklace.
We do not agree with appellant’s interpretation of the evidence. The Appraisal Report does not expressly indicate that the figure represents an award for the entire necklace rather than the value of the missing emerald stone encased in gold and diamonds. The Appraisal Report contains a photograph of the necklace with a large emerald and one photograph of the necklace without the large emerald. The description of the item in the report states only: “Not returned: large emerald gold and diamonds” and lists a value of $22,000. At the restitution hearing, Newmar stated that she did not know how Robinson determined the value of the emerald but assumed that he included the value of the gold and diamonds as well. She further admitted that she did not know whether Robinson determined a value for the stone alone, and in her view it appeared that he evaluated the “whole thing.” When questioned as to whether the “whole thing” meant that he had assessed the value of the entire necklace, Newmar responded that because the bead strands of the necklace had been returned to her she did not believe the value listed reflected the entire necklace. It is thus clear from Newmar’s testimony that she believed that the $22,000 figure in the Appraisal Report reflected the value of the emerald stone, encased in gold and diamonds, rather than the value of the entire necklace.
In addition, the Appraisal Report provides sufficient evidence for the court to find that the value of the emerald stone encased in gold and diamonds was $22,000. Even though appellant presented a declaration (from the person who originally sold the stone to appellant) to support the claim that the stone was worth far less than Robinson’s estimate, appellant’s estimate does not include the value of gold and diamonds that encased the stone. Moreover, appellant’s expert Mr. Davis could not say that any of the values of the items in the appraisal were unreasonable. In light of the foregoing, we cannot say the trial court acted beyond the bounds of its broad discretion in fixing the amount of restitution for this item.