ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION IV

MARCIA WILLIAMS,

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR03-23

NOVEMBER 19, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

SEVENTH DIVISION,

(NO. CR2001-3761)

HON. JOHN B. PLEGGE, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Sam Bird, Judge

Marcia Williams brings this appeal contending that the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Seventh Division, erred in determining that she owed McDonald's Restaurants $10,000 in restitution. She contends that the court erred by not considering the amount of restitution she could afford to pay, which, she states, is in violation of Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-4-205(b)(2)(A) (Repl. 1997 and Supp. 2001). We disagree with Williams, and we affirm.

Williams entered a plea of guilty to one count of theft of property after admitting that between May and August 2001, she had stolen cash from her employer, McDonald's. Because the parties could not agree on the amount of restitution owed to McDonald's, the circuit court conducted a hearing on that point.

At the hearing, the State called Rick Bruns, who testified that he operates the McDonald's restaurant where Williams was employed and did so during Williams's employment. Bruns stated that he noticed that Williams had been "siphoning money out of the business" when he realized that sales that were rung up on Williams's work shifts were substantially lower than sales rung up on other managers' work shifts throughout the same period of time. Bruns stated that he had determined the amount of money Williams had taken by comparing figures from her shift with figures from other managers' work shifts. Documents supporting these figures were entered as Exhibit 1. Bruns stated that he thought Williams had stolen at least $15,000. He also testified that he had received restitution in the amount of $5,555 from Janice Harris, another woman arrested for stealing from the same McDonald's during the same period that Williams had stolen. In addition, Bruns stated that he had withheld Williams's last paycheck, which totaled a "couple hundred dollars," as a result of Williams's actions.

Rick Cross, a detective with the southwest detective division in Little Rock, testified that when he interviewed Williams she admitted to stealing money from McDonald's. Cross testified that Williams stated that after a customer would order a full meal, Williams would ring into the cash register a side order, such as a piece of cheese. She would then charge the customer the price of the full meal and keep the difference between the amount that was rung into the cash register and the amount that was actually paid. Cross stated that Williams and another coworker, Precious Dean, would divide the stolen money between the two of them. Cross stated that although Williams admitted to stealing the money, Williams did not believe that she took more than $1,000.

Williams testified on her own behalf. She stated that she told Cross that she thought she had taken about $2,500. She stated that the only income she has is from her job at Greenbrier Retirement Home, where she currently earns $7.75 an hour. She stated that she has no money in any bank accounts, nor does she have any investments. She also testified that she has three children under the age of eighteen and that their father is not contributing to their support. In addition, she testified that she would be able pay restitution of "probably like $150 a month."

At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams was sentenced to sixty months' probation, conditioned in part upon payment of $10,000 in restitution in monthly installments of $168.1 Williams contends that the circuit court erred in not considering her financial resources and the burden that the payment of restitution will impose upon her with regard to her other obligations as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-205(b)(2)(A). She argues that there is no evidence in the record that the circuit court took into account her financial resources or the burden that restitution would impose on her obligation to support her three minor children. She offers evidence of this point by noting that during the hearing on the amount of restitution she would be ordered to pay, the judge stated, "I don't care what her ability to pay is."

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-205 states in pertinent part:

...

(b)(2) In determining the method of payment, the court shall take into account:

We construe statutes just as they read, giving their words ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Short v. State, 349 Ark. 492, 79 S.W.3d 313 (2002). If the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion to resort to rules of statutory interpretation. Id.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-205 requires that in determining restitution, the sentencing authority first must determine the actual economic loss. This determination is a factual question to be decided by the preponderance of the evidence. Then, when determining the method of payment, the sentencing authority must take into account the financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment will impose with regard to other obligations.

The trial court determined the amount of restitution owed to McDonald's based upon figures entered into evidence showing the actual economic loss caused to McDonald's. Then, in accordance with the statute, the trial court imposed a monthly payment of $168. Williams agreed that she would be able to pay approximately $150. We hold that the sentencing authority's determination was not in error, nor was it in violation of section 5-4-205.

Affirmed.

Hart and Vaught, JJ., agree.

1 At the end of the hearing, the court ordered Williams to pay $150 a month. However, the judgment and commitment order provided that Williams pay $168 a month. The judgment prevails. See, e.g., Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 400-01, 94 S.W.3d 904, 908-09 (2003) (holding that the judgment is not effective until entered.)