In re Dublinski, 695 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)

Cases | In re Dublinski, 695 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) | 2018

The appellant was adjudicated delinquent, placed in a juvenile facility, and ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution. On appeal, the juvenile challenged the propriety of the restitution award. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that the juvenile court abused its discretion in entering the restitution order against the juvenile. In particular, while the juvenile court properly determined that the amount of damage suffered by the home owners/victims in this case was $153,000, it did not consider the proportion of that damage caused by the juvenile, her ability to pay, or the manner in which she should make restitution. Since the award of restitution in the amount of $10,000 was purely speculative and based on no evidence of record, the juvenile court, on remand, had to try to calculate the damages attributable to the juvenile’s conduct, and then not order an award of restitution in excess of that amount. In determining the correct amount of restitution, the juvenile court must apply a “but-for” analysis, whereby the juvenile would be liable for all damages which would not have occurred but for her criminal conduct. Furthermore, the juvenile court must consider the earning capacity of the delinquent child. Finally, if the juvenile had no present ability to pay restitution, the juvenile court could defer imposition of a payment plan until an appropriate time in the future, taking into consideration the length of the period of jurisdiction, which the court would have to supervise and enforce the order of restitution.