Cases | In re Jose S., 499 A.2d 936 (Md. 1985) | 2018
Juvenile defendant Samuel B. admitted to the crime of breaking and entering. The state dismissed the other charges against him, including daytime housebreaking and theft of goods. Juvenile defendant Jose S. admitted the charge of stealing goods of a value of less than $300, and the State dismissed the other charges against him. After hearing testimony from the victim that $829-worth of goods had been stolen, the court entered an order of restitution against Jose S. and his mother for $414.50 and an order for Samuel B. and his mother, Deborah A. for the same amount. Samuel B’s mother and Jose S. appealed the restitution orders, which were affirmed by the intermediate court in an unreported opinion. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Jose S. argued that upon acceptance of his plea to the charge of theft under $300.00, the court was without authority to order restitution in more than that amount. The court found that the order of restitution contained no finding against Jose S. other than that he committed the delinquent act of stealing goods of less than $300.00 in value. Under that circumstance, the trial court erred in awarding restitution for a sum greater than that with which he was charged. Deborah A. argued to the Court of Appeals that she was not given adequate notice of the amount of restitution possible, and that the court could not order restitution against her as Samuel B.’s parent without first finding that her child had stolen, damaged, or destroyed the property, and that no such determination had been made. The court reviewed the record and held that Deborah A. did receive due and adequate notice, but that the restitution order was improper because the trial judge had failed at the restitution hearing to find that Samuel B. had stolen, damaged, or destroyed the victim’s property in question. The judgment of the Court of Special Appeals was vacated. Jose S.’s case was remanded to that court for a modification of the restitution order, and Samuel B’s case was remanded for an order reversing the order of restitution.