P.J. v. State
955 N.E.2d 234
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- P.J. pled guilty to burglary in a delinquency action arising from a December 2010 home break-in with intent to steal.
- The State dismissed a theft charge in exchange for P.J.’s admission to burglary and P.J.’s agreement to testify against his accomplice.
- Plea agreement required P.J. to pay restitution to Mayberry in the amount specified in the agreement.
- At dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered six months at Indiana Boys School and restitution of $347.13 to Mayberry, consistent with the plea.
- The restitution issue arose as to whether the court needed to conduct an ability-to-pay inquiry before imposing restitution.
- The court affirmed the restitution order, holding transportable by plea terms and not requiring an ability-to-pay hearing when restitution is a fixed sentence item.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering restitution without an ability-to-pay hearing. | P.J. argues no inquiry into ability to pay was conducted. | Plea fixed restitution amount governs, and court need not inquire. | No abuse; fixed-amount restitution under plea binds court. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.H. v. State, 950 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (abuse standard requires ability-to-pay determination)
- M.L. v. State, 838 N.E.2d 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (requirement to determine ability to pay even with plea for restitution)
- Allen v. State, 865 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (court bound by fixed plea terms when accepting plea)
- Ladd v. State, 710 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (restitution as a monetary judgment; non-incarceration for non-payment)