In the Int. of: L.V.W., Jr., a Minor
3727 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Appellant (a juvenile) admitted to possession of an instrument of crime after unlawfully entering Victim's residence with others; criminal trespass charge withdrawn.
- Victim claimed $13,598 in damages to the residence.
- Other co-defendants were previously ordered to pay portions totaling $4,000 ($1,000, $1,000, $2,000).
- Juvenile court ordered Appellant jointly and severally liable for the remaining $9,598 and imposed placement at Summit Academy and other financial conditions.
- Appellant appealed solely arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove a causal relation between his specific conduct and the restitution amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution amount lacked proof of causal relation to Appellant's conduct | Appellant: court had no basis to link his specific actions or level of culpability to the $9,598 award; amount was not tied to actual damages he caused | Juvenile court/Commonwealth: court relied on Appellant's admission, probation findings, and evidence Appellant was first to break in; other defendants' contributions deducted; restitution apportioned among primarily responsible parties | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; sufficient basis (admissions, probation report, Dublinski analysis) to hold Appellant jointly and severally liable for $9,598 |
| Whether juvenile court exceeded statutory authority in ordering restitution amount | Appellant: restitution must reflect actual damages caused by the child | Commonwealth: restitution imposed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(a)(5) allows broad discretion to apportion responsibility and hold juveniles accountable | Affirmed: restitution under §6352(a)(5) is discretionary and may allocate responsibility without strict itemized proof of which juvenile caused specific damage |
| Whether court failed to apply required factors for restitution (Dublinski) | Appellant: court did not evaluate Appellant's specific involvement or ability to pay | Commonwealth: court addressed amount of loss, causation (but-for), ability to pay, and payment type; reduced total by amounts others were ordered to pay | Affirmed: court considered Dublinski factors and reasonably concluded Appellant could pay and was causally linked to damages |
| Whether joint-and-several liability was improper or inequitable | Appellant: sought equal division among six co-defendants; claimed disparity in other co-defendants' obligations | Commonwealth: joint-and-several among the three most culpable was appropriate to make victim whole efficiently | Affirmed: joint-and-several liability among primarily responsible juveniles was reasonable and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 725 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1999) (juvenile court’s authority to order restitution under Juvenile Act)
- Appeal of B.T.C., 868 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 2005) (purpose of Juvenile Act includes holding children accountable; restitution under §6352(a)(5) allows broad discretion)
- In re J.J., 848 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2004) (dispositions not in Juvenile Act exceed juvenile court power)
- In re R.D.R., 876 A.2d 1009 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate review of juvenile dispositions; abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2008) (restitution review: order is an abuse if speculative, excessive, or unsupported)
- In re Dublinski, 695 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. 1997) (sets four-factor test for restitution: loss amount, causation, ability to pay, and payment type)