Myers v. State

We find merit only in the appellant’s argument that he should not have been ordered to pay restitution for the cost of a home lighting and alarm system installed at the victims’ home after the appellant and his codefendants had been found guilty of breaking into the victims’ van. The restitution order properly included awards for damages to the van and loss of items contained in it.

The state’s argument was that since the appellant’s brother, who was a codefendant in the case, later threatened to rob the victims’ home, they were entitled to be compensated for the installation of lighting and…