A18-1372

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1347
A18-1372

In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. A. B. H., Child.

Filed April 22, 2019
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Faribault County District Court
File Nos. 22-JV-17-170; 46-JV-17-139; 46-JV-17-162

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leslie J. Rosenberg, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Kathryn M. Karjala-Curtis, Faribault County Attorney, Malinda Quittem, Assistant County
Attorney; and

Terry W. Viesselman, Martin County Attorney, Adam L. Hinz, Assistant County Attorney,
Fairmont, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Bjorkman, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
In this consolidated appeal from a restitution order and an amended restitution order,
appellant, a juvenile, challenges the amendment of restitution, arguing that the district court

2
erred in increasing the amount of restitution. Because we see no error in the district court’s
amendment of the amount of restitution, we affirm.
FACTS
In November 2017, appellant C.A.B.H., then a juvenile, admitted to charges of
felony damage to property and misdemeanor theft. At a disposition and probation-violation
hearing in January 2018, appe llant was adjudicated delinquent and ordered to com plete a
program at Second C hances and to pay restitution of $1,650, jointly and severally with a
codefendant. Appellant did not object, restitution was not reserved, and appellant paid the
$1,650.
In February 2018, an affidavit of restitution was filed for $2,564 (damage of $3,064
less the victim’s $500 insurance deductible). At a restitution hearing in June 2018, a
representative of the insurer sa id the amount sought was $2,546. 35. In July 2018,
following a contested -restitution hearing, the district court granted the request for
restitution in the amount of $3,064 joint and several with the codefendant because the
insurer’s claim, made in February 2018, was not known to the district court when it first
ordered restitution in January 2018.
Appellant challenges the amendment, arguing that the district court erred in
amending the amount of restitution because restitution had not been reserved.
D E C I S I O N
“[D]etermining whether an item meets the statutory requirements for restitution is a
question of law that is fully reviewable by the appellate court.” State v. Nelson , 796
N.W.2d 343, 346-47 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

3
The juvenile -delinquency statutes provide for restitution. See Minn. Stat.
§ 260B.198, subds. 1(5), 8 (2018) (allowing restitution in juvenile de linquency cases);
Minn. Stat. §§ 611A.04, .045 (2018) (allowing restitution when an offender is found to be
delinquent). When an offender is found delinquent:
[t]he [district] court may amend or issue an order of restitution
after the sentencing or dispositional hearing if:
(1) the offender is on probation, committed to the
commissioner of corrections, or on supervised release;
(2) sufficient evidence of a right to restitution has been
submitted; and
(3) the true extent of the victim’s loss or the loss of the
Crime Victims Reparations Board was not known at the time
of the sentencing or dispositional hearing, or hearing on the
restitution request.

Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(b). The first two criteria for amendment were not disputed.
As to the third, at the end of the hearing, the district court said:
The court has had the opportunity to review the cases cited by
both parties as well as the applicable restitution statute [and
found] that [the victim’s insurer] did incur a loss as a result of
[appellant’s] actions. I do not see any indication that the court
was aware of that loss and . . . the only notice I see is that there
was an affidavit of restitution filed by [the insurer], but that
happened after disposition. So, the timing is such that I would
have to find that the court could not have been aware of it as it
was filed after the disposition hearing. . . . I see no indication
that the losses were known to the court prior [to disposition].
Accordingly, I am going to amend the restitution order.
Appellant relies on State v. Meredyk, 754 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. App. 2008) to argue
that, under Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, the d istrict court had no authority to amend because
restitution had not been reserved. But Meredyk does not support this proposition; Meredyk
concluded that the district court lacked statutory authority to modify restitution because the

4
true extent of the victim’s loss was known at the time of sentencing, not because of a failure
to reserve restitution. Meredyk, 754 N.W.2d at 601.
Appellant also argues, as he argued at the c ontested restitution hearing, that the
district court did know of the insurance company’s claim at the disposition hearing because
the predisposition report stated, “On 1/23/2018 [R.B.] with Martin County Victim Services
informed this [c orrections] agent that [one victim] is requesting $650 in restitution and
[another victim] is requesting $1000 in restitution, for a total amount of $1,650 in
restitution.” But this amount was exclusive of the insurance company’s claim and was the
amount appellant was told he had to pay in restitution on that date. The report does not
show that the district court knew of the insurance company’s claim at the disposition
hearing. See Mason v. State , 652 N.W.2d 269, 271 -72 (Minn. App. 2002) (declining to
vacate a restitution order issued after sentencing when the court did not know the extent of
the victim’s loss at sentencing).
The record supports the district court’s finding that the court did not know of the
insurance company’s claim at the time of the disposition and its conclusion that the criteria
of Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1, for amending a restitution award had been met. There
was no error in the amendment.
Affirmed.