State of Idaho v. Catherine Elizabeth Hernandez

── State of Idaho v. Catherine Elizabeth Hernandez ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51678 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 13, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED CATHERINE ELIZABETH ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT HERNANDEZ, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge. Judgment of restitution, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ LORELLO, Judge Catherine Elizabeth Hernandez appeals from a judgment of restitution.1 We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Hernandez was living with her boyfriend, Thomas, and his mother, Janis. Hernandez reported abusive conduct to the police, and Thomas and Janis were required to leave their shared residence pursuant to a protection order. Hernandez then moved out of the shared residence and took items belonging to Thomas and Janis, placing most of the items in a storage unit. When 1 Although the district court entered an “order for restitution,” the district court provided that “this order may be used by the identified victim(s) as a civil judgment.” Accordingly, we refer to this as the judgment of restitution. 1 Thomas and Janis returned to the residence, they reported the missing items to the police. Hernandez was charged with two counts of grand theft--one count for items belonging to Thomas and one count for items belonging to Janis. The storage unit was searched by police pursuant to a warrant and some of the missing items were found. Thomas received an insurance payout for the items not found in the storage unit. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Hernandez entered an Alford2 plea to one count of grand theft and the second count was dismissed. The agreement contained a term that Hernandez consented to pay full restitution on all charged or uncharged crimes. The State filed a motion requesting restitution for Thomas and Wilber, Thomas’s insurance company’s subrogation agent responsible for pursuing any legal remedy against Hernandez for the insurance payout. The district court then held a hearing to determine restitution and entered a judgment of restitution awarding $15,910.00 to Thomas and $11,373.14 to The Wilber Group, for a restitution award totaling $27,283.14. Hernandez appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The decision of whether to order restitution, and in what amount, is within the discretion of a trial court, guided by consideration of the factors set forth in I.C. § 19-5304(7) and by the policy favoring full compensation to crime victims who suffer economic loss. State v. Torrez, 156 Idaho 118, 119, 320 P.3d 1277, 1278 (Ct. App. 2014); State v. Bybee, 115 Idaho 541, 543, 768 P.2d 804, 806 (Ct. App. 1989). Thus, an order of restitution will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Torrez, 156 Idaho at 120, 320 P.3d at 1