In re Earl F.
208 Md. App. 269
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- State filed a juvenile petition Aug. 31, 2010 alleging Earl F. was a delinquent child for robbery, second-degree assault, and theft of property <$100.
- Appellant was adjudicated delinquent on all counts after a contested hearing.
- Disposition hearing on Oct. 27, 2010 ordered placement with the Department of Juvenile Services with probationary home placement.
- Restitution hearing on Dec. 8, 2010 ordered restitution of $600, reduced to judgment.
- Appellant on appeal argues restitution must be limited to the $10 amount alleged in the petition.
- Court discusses whether restitution may reflect victim loss beyond the petition and whether due process notice was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May restitution exceed the petition’s amount? | Earl F. argues restitution is limited to $10 as alleged. | State argues juvenile court may base restitution on victim loss. | Restitution may reflect loss beyond the petition amount; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was due process violated by admitting a greater loss amount than pleaded? | Appellant asserts lack of notice for excess restitution. | State provided notice via adjudicatory and restitution hearings. | No due process violation; notices and hearings adequately informed. |
| Does Walczak control the restitution amount issue? | Walczak bars restitution for uncharged offenses or limits to charged amount. | Walczak distinguished; here loss tied to adjudicated offenses. | Walczak does not control; restitution tied to victim’s loss within adjudicated acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422 (Md. 1985) (restitution is improper when linked to uncharged offenses in probation context)
- In re John M., 129 Md.App. 165 (Md. 1999) (juvenile restitution broad discretion to promote rehabilitation; not limited to petition value)
- In re Delric H., 150 Md.App. 234 (Md. 2003) (restitution serves to compensate victims and rehabilitate juveniles; broad discretion)
- Grey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 363 Md. 445 (Md. 2001) (restoration principles; statutory authorization for restitution based on loss)
- United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2012) (restitution determination standards; amount reviewed for abuse of discretion after permissibility)