J-A26045-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.R.B., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: M.R.B., A MINOR
No. 2008 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Dispositional Order October 22, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Juvenile Division at No.: CP-22-JV-0000053-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
Appellant, M.R.B., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order
following the juvenile court’s adjudication of delinquency following her
counseled admission to five counts each of forgery, theft by deception,
receiving stolen property, criminal conspiracy, and bad checks.1 Appellant
challenges the restitution award. We affirm on the basis of the juvenile
court’s January 23, 2015 opinion.
In its January 23, 2015 opinion, the juvenile court fully and correctly
sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. (See
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4101(a)(2), 3922(a)(1), 3925(a), 903(c), and 4105(a)(1),
respectively.
J-A26045-15
Juvenile Court Opinion, 1/23/15, at 1-2). Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them here.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by
misapplying the law when it awarded restitution to Ms. Pamela
Weinberg as a third party?
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding
excessive restitution in the amount of [$1,215.21]?
(Appellant’s Brief, at 5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the juvenile court, we
conclude that there is no merit to Appellant’s issues. The juvenile court
properly disposed of all of the questions presented. (See Juvenile Ct. Op.,
at 3-5) (finding: (1) juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in award
of joint and several restitution; and (2) amount of restitution award
appropriate). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the juvenile court’s
January 23, 2015 opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/29/2015
-2-
'JANCirculated 09/04/2015 02:37 PM
2 7 20iS
IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. NO. 53-N-2014 ·--, .
.,I •~·
M.B., a minor CRIMINAL MATTER
TRIAL COURT MEMORANDUM OPINION PURSUANT TO
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925(A)
Presently before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is the appeal .ofll••••
(Appellant) from this Court's.Order, dated October 22, 2014, in which Appellant was directed to
pay restitution in the amount of one thousand two hundred fifteen dollars and twenty-one cents
($1,215.21) to Ms. Pamela Weinberg'.
Procedural History
Written allegations were filed on April 1, 2014. The Commonwealth filed a Juvenile
Petition in the matter on June 9, 2014. This Court entered a temporary Order on June 25, 2014
directing that Appellant be detained pending further review of this Court. Appellant received a
psychological and IQ assessment on August 29, 2014. On September 29, 2014, Appellant
. .
entered a Counseled Admission pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to five (5) counts of
Forgery', five (5) counts of Theft By Deception', five (5) counts of Receiving Stolen Property",
. five (5) counts of Criminal Conspiracy5 and five (5) counts of Bad Checks6, each charge graded
as a First Degree Misdemeanor. Appellant was adjudicated delinquent on October 22, 2014 and
I
Pamela Weinberg is Jessica Weinberg's mother. Jessica Weinberg was the person who cashed the fraudulent
checks on Appellant's behalf. Pamela Weinberg paid $1,215.21 to Member's First Bank on behalfofher daughter,
Jessica Weinberg.
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. 410l(a)(2)
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. 3922(a)(I)
4
18 Pa.C.S.A. 3925(a)
5
18 Pa.C.S.A. 903
6
18 Pa.C.S.A. 41 OS(a)(l)
Circulated 09/04/2015 02:37 PM
a period of probation was imposed. Also on this date, Appellant was directed to make
restitution in the amount ofone thousand two hundred fifteen dollars and twenty-one cents
($1,215.21) to Ms. Pamela Weinberg. On November 5, 2014, Appellant filed a Post-
Dispositional Motion and a Petition for Transcript. · Appellant's Petition for Transcript was
granted on November 13, 2014. Appellant was granted Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis on
November 26, 2014. Also on November. 26, 2014, Appellant filed Notice of Appeal. On
December 4, 2014, this Court directed .Appellant to file a concise· statement of issues intended to
. . . . . . .. . . . . ~l: ...
be argued onappeal, · Appellant filed a timely Statementof Matters Complained of on Appeal on
December 12, 2014.
Factual Background
Five checks were stolen from B.J. Smith. (Notes of Testimony, September 29, 2014, 7).
Appellant and Terrance Morten approached Jessica Weinberg, a friend, and asked her to cash the
stolen checks. (N.T., 7). Ms. Weinberg first cashed a check in the amount of $300.00 and then
cashed three additional checks in the amount of $300.00, all on Appellant's behalf. (N.T., 7).
Appellant told Ms. Weinberg that the checks belonged to a family member who was in prison and
that Appellant had received permission from the owner to write checks to pay rent. (N·.T., 7).
However, the checks were stolen from B.J. Smith. (N.T., 7). Mr. Smith reported that the checks
had been stolen and that he did not give anyone permission to cash them. (N.T., 7).
Appellant's Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal
Appellant argues the following on appeal:
2
Circulated 09/04/2015 02:37 PM
I . The trial court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of one thousand two
hundred fifteen dollars and twenty-one cents ($1,215.21) to a third party, Ms. Pamela
Weinberg.
2. The trial court by [sic] ordering restitution in the amount of one thousand two
hundred fifteen dollars and twenty-one cents ($1,215.21) as it was excessive and
unreasonable in light of her degree of culpability in comparison to the other involved
parties.
· (StatementofErrors, December 12, 2014, 1,2) ..
Discussion
The Juvenile Act grants broad discretion to the court when determining an order of
restitution. Com v. B.D.G.,959 A.2d 362, 366 (Pa. Super. 2008). In relevant part, Pennsylvania
statutory law dictates:
( a) [ijf the child is found to be a delinquent child, the court may make any of the
following orders of disposition determined to be consistent with the protection of
the public interest and best suited to the child's treatment, supervision,
rehabilitation and welfare, which disposition shall, as appropriate to the individual
circumstances of the child's case, provide balanced attention to the protection of
the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the
development of competencies to enable the child to become a responsible and
productive member of the community[.]
42 Pa,C.S. §6352(a). That statute further provides that the court may order "payment by the
child of reasonable amounts of money as fines, costs, fees or restitution as deemed appropriate as
part of the plan of rehabilitation considering the nature of the acts committed and the earning
capacity of the child, including a contribution to a restitution fund." 42 Pa.C.S. §6352(a)(5). Our
Superior Court has held that that "[t]he Juvenile Act grants broad discretion to the court when
determining an appropriate disposition" and that disposition will not be disturbed absent a
3
Circulated 09/04/2015 02:37 PM
manifest abuse of discretion. In re J.G., 45 A.3d 1118, 1120 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing In re
R.D.R., 876 A.2D 109, 1013 (Pa. Super. 2005)). In reviewing an order of restitution, the
Superior Court will find that discretion is abused where the order at issue is speculative or
excessive or lacks support in the record. In re J.G., 45 A.3d 1118, 1120 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing
·In Interst of Dublinski, 695 A.2d 827, 829 (Pa Super. 1997)).
Appellant argues that this Court erred when it ordered restitution in the amount of
$1,215.21 to a third party. Appellant further argues that the amount ordered was excessive and
unreasonablein Iightof herdegree of'culpability in comparison to the other in~olved parties ..
In the case ofln re J.E.D., 879 A.2d 288, (Pa. Super. 2004), where the court ordered the
juvenile to pay restitution stemming from a simple assault charge, the court applied a "but-for"
analysis in which the juvenile was liable for restitution for all damages "which would not have
occurred but -for his or her criminal acts" Id. at 289, 292.
Here, "but-for" the Appellant's actions in this case, there would be no need for the
payment of restitution. However, Appellant admitted to the delinquent act which led to the need
for such restitution. Appellant testified that she understood that she broke the law. (N.T., 4).
Appellant further testified that she understood that she would face consequences of the
adjudication of delinquency which could include the payment of money. (N.T., 5). If it were not
for Appellant's actions, Pamela Weinberg would not have paid $1,215.21 to Member's First
Bank.
Appellant further argues that the ordered amount of restitution was excessive and
unreasonable in light of her degree of culpability in comparison to the other involved parties.
However, in addition to the court having a broad measure of discretion in apportioning
responsibility, the Juvenile Act authorizes, "the court to order payment by the child of reasonable
4
Circulated 09/04/2015 02:37 PM
amounts of money as fines, costs, or restitution as deemed appropriate as part of the plan of
rehabilitation concerning the nature of the acts committed and the earning capacity of the child"
Com. v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 367 (Pa. Super. 2008).
This Court considered the fact that Appellant admitted to the charges and that Appellant
is employed full-time as a manager at Install America and therefore able to pay the restitution
ordered. (See Notes of Testimony, October 22, 2014, 6). This Court recognized that the amount
of restitution ordered was appropriate as part of the plan of rehabilitation considering the nature
of the acts committed and the earning capacity of'the child.
Accordingly, we ask the Superior Court to affirm our Order of October 22, 2014 and to
dismiss the appeal in this matter.
Respectfully submitted:
,·• ·.
Distribution: f-- i 1-/5 @ /Z :3D P"
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania m (Ji. J \
.Sandra J, O'Hara, Esq., Dauphin County District Attorney's Office , / D
'/.Corey Korinda, Esq., Dauphin County Public Defender's Office I Io
· Clerk of Courts \LC
Robert Sisock, Deputy Court Administrator 1\ t)
Judge Cherry i\ \)
5