People v Synowiecki

Defendant was convicted of theft and possession of a stolen firearm and sentenced to five years in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. On appeal he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress inculpatory statements elicited by law enforcement after counsel was appointed, the State failed to prove him guilty of theft beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court’s order of restitution was improper because it was based on insufficient evidence. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that trial counsel was not ineffective where a motion to suppress would have been without merit and that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in the amount awarded in restitution because it did not evaluate the actual costs incurred by the victim, including the fair market value of the items taken but not returned. (TURNER and KNECHT, concurring)