This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).






In the Matter of the Welfare of: Q.L.S., Child.


Filed March 30, 2004

Affirmed as modified

Stoneburner, Judge


Beltrami County District Court

File No. J90250708


John M. Stuart, Minnesota Public Defender, Ann McCaughan, Assistant Public Defender, Suite 425, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)


Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Suite 500, 525 Park Street, St. Paul, MN 55103; and


Timothy R. Faver, Beltrami County Attorney, Suite 40, Court Annex, 619 Beltrami Avenue Northwest, Bemidji, MN 56601 (for respondent)


            Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge, Anderson, Judge, and Hudson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D  O P I N I O N




            Appellant juvenile Q.L.S. challenges the district court’s restitution order as an abuse of discretion.  We affirm.




            Seventeen-year-old Q.L.S. and two other juveniles broke into a seasonal residence near the Red Lake Indian Reservation and took two four-wheelers.  A few days later, the group returned to the residence and burned it to the ground.

            Q.L.S. was adjudicated delinquent in an extended-jurisdiction juvenile proceeding based on his Alford plea to one count of first-degree arson and guilty plea to one count of second-degree burglary.  His adult sentence was stayed and a juvenile disposition of commitment to the Red Wing correctional facility, with joint and several liability for restitution, was imposed.  The juvenile court will have jurisdiction over Q.L.S. until he is 21 years old.

            After a restitution hearing, at which the amount of restitution was not contested, the court ordered restitution in the amount of $196,059.28.  Of that amount, $141,187.79 is to reimburse the victims’ homeowners’ insurer and $54,871.57 is to compensate the homeowners for their uninsured loss.[1]  The district court found that despite only having a seventh-grade education and never having been employed, Q.L.S. is able-bodied, able to work and has the ability to pay restitution both through community work service and employment once he is released from the Commissioner of Corrections.  The district court noted that Q.L.S. will receive an education at Red Wing and will have an opportunity to work community service, earning restitution dollars from the restitution fund.



            District courts have broad discretion in imposing restitution.  State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn. 1999).  A victim of a crime has the right to receive restitution as part of a delinquency proceeding when a juvenile is found delinquent. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2002).  In awarding restitution, the district court must consider “(1) the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense; and (2) the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant.”  Minn. Stat.    

§ 611A.045, subd. 1(a) (2002).  Only if the district court abused its discretion will this court reverse a restitution award.  Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d at 671.

            For the first time on appeal, Q.L.S. argues that the district court abused its discretion by basing restitution on the replacement cost of personal property rather than the fair market value of the property at the time of destruction.  Because the amount of restitution claimed was not challenged in the district court, the record does not reflect how the district court arrived at the amount.  This court will generally not consider matters not argued and considered in the district court.  Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996).  Because Q.L.S. did not challenge the amount of restitution requested at the restitution hearing, we decline to review this issue.

            Q.L.S. also argues that the district court abused its discretion by including reimbursement to an insurance company in the restitution order.  This issue was also not raised in the district court and we decline to address it, except to note that insurance companies are victims for purposes of restitution.  See State v. Jola, 409 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Minn. App. 1987). 

            Finally, Q.L.S. argues that the district court abused its discretion by making him jointly and severally liable for such a large amount of restitution because he has no resources, little education, and has not been employed. The district court clearly considered Q.L.S.’s situation and noted possible ways that he can begin to meet his restitution obligation while at Red Wing and on release.  Q.L.S. has not been ordered to make installment payments in any specific amount at this time.  A determination of reasonableness of a restitution award is not determined solely by reference to a defendant’s ability to pay the award in full.  State v. Maidi, 520 N.W.2d 414, 419 (Minn. App. 1994) (hereinafter Maidi I), aff’d 537 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1995) (hereinafter Maidi II). “Instead, a determination of reasonableness is appropriately based on a defendant’s ability to pay the requisite installments.”  Id.

            The supreme court has stated that “while restitution may have the dual purpose of rehabilitating the defendant and compensating the victim, the primary purpose is to compensate victims.”  Maidi II, 537 N.W.2d at 286.  “To that end, Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (1998) provides that ‘[a] victim of a crime has the right to receive restitution as part of the disposition of a criminal charge . . . .’”  State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759, 768 (Minn. 1999) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (1998)) (emphasis in original).  Although the total award is very large, others also share the burden of compensating the victims, and we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by awarding restitution in the undisputed amount of their loss.  But as previously noted, we modify the amount due to the homeowners to $54,871.49.

            Affirmed as modified. 


[1] The total amount of restitution less the amount paid to the homeowners by the insurance company is actually $54,871.49, not $54,871.57.  Therefore, we modify the district court’s order to reflect the correct amount due to the homeowners of $54,871.49.