State, Victims' Compensation Assistance Program v. Chianese
128 A.3d 628
| Del. | 2015Background
- In 2009 David Chianese entered a probation-before-judgment plea for offensive touching; the written sentence left restitution blank though the judge ordered a presentence investigation to assess restitution.
- Victim Heather Barron sought restitution and submitted claims to both the Court’s Investigative Services Office (ISO) and the Victims’ Compensation Assistance Program (VCAP).
- VCAP paid Barron $12,107.35 in 2010 for medical expenses and lost wages; Barron later accepted and cashed the check.
- ISO recommended that Chianese reimburse VCAP the $12,107.35 and declined to recommend additional restitution to Barron, who was told to pursue civil litigation for greater amounts.
- Chianese refused to reimburse VCAP; after a restitution hearing in December 2013, the Court of Common Pleas denied the State’s application to order restitution to VCAP, finding no statutory authority to award restitution to a third party and no custody or control over defendant funds.
- The Superior Court summarily affirmed; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding the Common Pleas lacked authority (pre-2014 amendments) to order restitution to VCAP years after sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Common Pleas could order restitution to VCAP under Ct. Com. Pl. Crim. Rule 32 / 11 Del. C. § 4101/4106 | State: Rule 32 and § 4101/4106 permit court to order restitution to VCAP as reimbursement for victim payments | Chianese: Statutes limit restitution to victims and require restitution to be part of the sentence or jurisdiction expressly reserved | Court: No — statutes limit restitution to victims and require express sentence or reservation; Rule 32 cannot override statutory limits |
| Whether Chapter 90 (pre-2014) allowed VCAP reimbursement through court-ordered compensating fine (§ 9018) | State: Chapter 90 provided mechanisms (including compensating fines) to direct funds to VCAP | Chianese: No request was made for a compensating fine; court never exercised that discretion | Court: State abandoned this avenue; no compensating fine was requested or ordered, so relief unavailable |
| Whether the court could impose restitution nearly four years after sentencing absent reservation of jurisdiction | State: Presentence investigation and later proceedings justify award | Chianese: Sentencing order left restitution blank; defendant relied on that term; no reservation of jurisdiction | Court: Absent an express restitution order or reservation at sentencing, court lacked authority to impose restitution years later |
| Whether Rule 32 could validate restitution to a non-victim in absence of statutory authority | State: Rule empowered court to address restitution and victim-impact matters | Chianese: A court rule cannot expand statutory jurisdiction to award restitution to third parties | Court: Rule cannot confer authority contrary to statute; Rule 32 (as then worded) did not authorize VCAP reimbursement |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Singleton, 160 A.2d 376 (Del. 1960) (court cannot change or expand statute by rule)
- Nelson v. Frank E. Best Inc., 768 A.2d 473 (Del. Ch. 2000) (limitations on court authority under statute cannot be overridden by court rule)
- Wyatt v. State, 498 A.2d 1088 (Del. 1985) (§ 4106 restitution is confined to property-related victim losses)
- Redick v. State, 858 A.2d 947 (Del. 2004) (definition and limits of who qualifies as a victim for restitution purposes)
- Brock v. State, 61 A.3d 617 (Del. 2013) (restitution may not be ordered to non-victims such as third-party funds prior to statutory change)