Commonwealth v. Avram A., a juvenile (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-018-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 11‑P‑1489 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. AVRAM A., a juvenile. No. 11‑P‑1489. Franklin‑Hampshire. November 1, 2012. ‑ January 30, 2013. Present: Meade, Sikora, & Hanlon, JJ. Restitution. Damages, Restitution. Juvenile Court, Delinquent child, Probation. Practice, Criminal, Juvenile delinquency proceeding, Restitution, Probation. Complaint received and sworn to in the Franklin and Hampshire Counties Division of the Juvenile Court Department on August 20, 2010. A proceeding for revocation of probation, filed on October 20, 2011, was heard by James G. Collins, J. Craig R. Bartolomei for the defendant. Thomas H. Townsend, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. MEADE, J. After admitting to facts sufficient to warrant a finding of delinquent for “tagging” property in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 126B, the juvenile’s case was continued without a finding for one year with agreed to conditions which included the payment of restitution. On appeal, the juvenile claims the restitution order constituted an abuse of the judge’s discretion because the juvenile was unable to pay due to his age, the order was contrary to the purpose of the juvenile justice system, it was improperly extended, and it was not supported with adequate documentation and evidence. We affirm. 1. Background. After conducting a restitution hearing, the judge found the following facts. Armed with a can of spray paint, the juvenile “tagged” several properties in Easthampton. At Richard Dudkiewicz’s home, letters were spray painted on some newly installed vinyl siding on the garage. The paint could not be removed from the siding. The professional estimate to replace the siding was $ 276.45. Dudkiewicz performed the repair himself. The siding material cost him $ 160, and the job took two days to complete. Utilizing the minimum wage rate of eight dollars per hour, multiplied by fifteen hours, the judge calculated the labor cost to be worth $ 120; the professional labor estimate was $ 110. At Eric Sergal’s home, the juvenile spray painted some symbols and numerals on the concrete foundation. Sergal received a $ 500 estimate to remove the paint. The judge found that the damage to Sergal’s property was very similar in size and location to that done to the home of his neighbor, Robert Blanchette. Blanchette, who was elderly and in poor health, did not obtain an estimate for the paint removal from […]