In re A.R.
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed the juvenile court’s April 13, 2021 order awarding restitution. He contended the juvenile court lacked authority to hold a restitution hearing five years after his sentencing hearing, and the delay was prejudicial. He also claimed parts of the restitution awards to two sets of victims were erroneous.
The Second Appellate District affirmed the Superior Court’s restitution order requiring Defendant to pay restitution. The court held that the juvenile court had the authority to hold the restitution and Defendant has not shown prejudice due to the delay in holding the restitution hearing. The court reasoned that Defendant agreed the amount of restitution could be determined at a future date by the probation officer and Defendant failed to provide a record cite showing that he contended at the restitution hearing that the allegation involving a specific victim had not been adjudicated or admitted, or that he argued she was not a proper person to receive restitution. Further, while some of the victims provided testimony that differed from their earlier written accounts of stolen items, Defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on all aspects of their testimony, including their memories. Thus, the juvenile court was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses, including any express or implied claims that their memories were accurate.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.