Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of the Welfare of:
Filed July 7, 1998
Stearns County District Court
File No. J0-97-50524
Roger S. Van Heel, Stearns County Attorney, Janis L. Hovda, Assistant Stearns County Attorney, Administration Center, Room 448, 705 Courthouse Square, St. Cloud, MN 56303 (for respondent petitioner)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Charlann Winking, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Ave. S.E., Ste. 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414-3230 (for appellant J.D.D.)
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Norton, Judge.*
*Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
Sixteen-year-old J.D.D. was adjudicated delinquent for first-degree criminal damage to property for kicking and damaging a snowmobile. See Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 1(3) (1996) (intentional damage to another's physical property that reduces property's value by more than $500 measured by cost of repair and replacement). On appeal, he argues that the trial court denied his request for a restitution hearing. Because appellant was given ample opportunity to challenge the amount of restitution and because he failed to present additional competent evidence challenging that amount, we affirm.
J.D.D. argues that he has a right to a separate restitution hearing to challenge the amount of restitution. We conclude that the restitution issue was fully presented and considered at trial and in a disposition hearing, and J.D.D. was not entitled to a separate restitution hearing.
A request for restitution is generally considered at the sentencing or disposition hearing. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1 (1996) (crime victim has right to receive restitution as part of juvenile delinquency proceeding, and court must obtain information from victim regarding items and amount of loss prior to sentencing or disposition hearing). At that hearing, "the court shall give the offender an opportunity to respond to specific items of restitution and their dollar amounts." Id. The offender then must produce evidence if he intends to challenge the amount. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3 (1996). "This burden of production must include a detailed sworn affidavit of the offender setting forth all challenges to the restitution * * * and specifying all reasons justifying dollar amounts of restitution which differ from the amounts requested by the victim." Id.
In this case, the uncontroverted evidence presented at trial included two written estimates and the testimony of two experts that the damages totaled approximately $1,200. At the end of trial, the court adjudicated J.D.D. delinquent and noted that trial "almost seem[ed] to be like an extended restitution hearing in terms of determining what, in fact, the damages were[.]" The court ordered a predisposition report, which indicated that the victim was seeking $1,204.08 in restitution and that J.D.D. believed this amount was "outrageous." At the disposition hearing, the state presented a request by the victim's insurance company for restitution of $1,204.08. Because J.D.D. challenged this amount, the trial court gave him 30 days to present "additional evidence over what [was presented] at trial." In a subsequent affidavit in support of his request for a hearing, however, J.D.D. merely stated that he disputed the amount, that he did not believe the damages amounted to $1,204.08, and that he did not believe the snowmobile was worth $1,200. The trial court thereafter denied J.D.D.'s request for another hearing.
J.D.D. admits that the trial court could "take judicial notice of the state's evidence from trial on the amount of loss" and "that evidence may be sufficientCabsent any countervailing proof" from him. Nevertheless, the only "evidence" presented by J.D.D. at the time he requested a separate hearing was his statement that he did not "believe" the damage amounted to $1,204.08. Under these circumstances, J.D.D. failed to meet his statutory burden of production, and the trial court did not err in denying his request for a separate restitution hearing.