In Re Jg
45 A.3d 1118
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- In November 2009, J.G. and two others carjacked a woman's vehicle and wrecked it during a police chase.
- All three were charged as adults but offered to plead delinquent in the juvenile court system; J.G. pled on Nov 24, 2009 to Robbery of a Motor Vehicle, Criminal Conspiracy, and Receiving Stolen Property.
- Disposition was deferred to Dec 22, 2009; J.G. was committed to Alternative Rehabilitative Communities with a review set for Mar 25, 2010; restitution not addressed at that time.
- On Mar 16, 2010, probation filed a Restitution Review Report after the victim sought $11,607 to be shared among the three co-defendants.
- At the Mar 25, 2010 hearing, restitution was objected to as more than 30 days had elapsed since plea; hearing was continued to Apr 15, 2010.
- At the Apr 15, 2010 hearing, Erie Insurance testified the vehicle was totaled with $14,657.78 paid; victim limited restitution request to $5,000; court ordered $1,667 to the victim and $4,886 to the insurer per defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution order issued after disposition was within jurisdiction | J.G. argues lack of jurisdiction due to 114 days post-disposition. | Commonwealth contends statutory authority under Juvenile Act permits restitution post-disposition. | Restitution authorized under Juvenile Act; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the restitution award was authorized and not speculative or excessive | J.G. claims the amount or process was speculative/excessive. | Commonwealth contends discretion to apportion damages within statute and record support. | Award reasonable and within statutory parameters. |
| Whether ordering restitution after disposition violated due process or created an illegal sentence | Restitution after disposition implicates due process/illegal sentence concerns. | April 15, 2010 order is a separate appealable order; not a due process issue here. | No due process violation; not an illegal sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2008) (juvenile restitution authority and discretion under the Juvenile Act)
- In re M.W., 725 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1999) (juvenile restitution within rehabilitative purpose)
- In re Dublinski, 695 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. 1997) (restitution should not be speculative or excessive)
- Commonwealth v. Kinney, 777 A.2d 492 (Pa. Super. 2001) (illegal sentence concept related to statutory authority)
- In re J.E.D., Jr., 879 A.2d 288 (Pa. Super. 2005) (restitution review order as an appealable order)