Title: Attorney Grievance Comm. v. Milliken

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 47 
  
September Term, 1997
IN RE:  CHRISTOPHER R.
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
Rodowsky
Chasanow
           Raker
Wilner
Karwacki, Robert L.
 
(Retired, specially assigned)
JJ.
Opinion by Karwacki, J.
      Filed:   January 15, 1998
 
                   
Between June 17, 1995 and August 1, 1995, the Petitioner, Christopher R., then 15
-2-
years old, broke into Middlesex Elementary School and stole one 1994 Macintosh computer,
along with a 1994 Apple CD Rom internal drive and various upgrades and  memory that had
been  purchased between 1992 and 1995.  Christopher R. was charged in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore County with being a delinquent child, and a complaint was filed against him
and his parents, seeking restitution for the stolen equipment.  At a hearing before the juvenile
master of that court, after the juvenile was adjudged to be a delinquent child, the parties
agreed to an immediate disposition hearing.  At disposition, the juvenile and his parents
objected to the use of an itemized list prepared by an administrator of the school of the stolen
equipment showing the date of purchase, purchase price and replacement cost of each of the
stolen items.  The  reason for their objection was that the list did not reflect the fair market
value of the stolen property as of the date of the theft.  That objection was overruled, and the
master recommended that restitution should be based upon the cost of the equipment which
had to be purchased to replace the stolen property.  The total replacement cost was
$5,415.00.  Accordingly, the master recommended restitution in the amount of $5,000, being
the maximum amount permitted under the applicable statute.  The juvenile and his parents
excepted to the master’s recommendation as to the amount of restitution.  
Before the court, the State conceded that it had been error to use replacement cost as
the basis for a restitution judgment but that the original purchase prices for the stolen
property should be used instead.  They totaled $5,049.  The circuit court overruled the 
exceptions even though no evidence of fair market value of the stolen property had been
-2-
produced, reasoning:
“Purchase price was $5049.  I have absolutely no way to
know what rate of depreciation should be used for computers,
so I think I am bound by the, the purchase prices in the various
years that are listed.  The oldest unit is from 1992 and the
newest is from 1995.
* * *
That, and those are the rules that I’m going to use to
establish the amount for restitution.  And I establish that amount
as $5049...  The limit is $5000, so the exceptions taken are
overruled.  I find that the Master appropriately ordered
restitution in amount of $5,000.”
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed that judgment in an unreported opinion.  We issued
a writ of certiorari on the petition of the juvenile and his parents.
At the time of the delinquent act from which the issue in the instant case arises,
restitution in a juvenile court was governed by Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.).  
Section 3-829 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.  It provided in pertinent part:
“(a)(1) The court may enter a judgment of restitution
against the parent of a child, the child, or both in any case in
which the court finds a child has committed a delinquent act and
during or as a result of the commission of that delinquent act
has:
(i) Stolen, damaged, destroyed, converted,
unlawfully obtained, or substantially decreased the value of the
property of another;
* * *
(c)(1) A judgment rendered under this section may not
exceed:
 This statute was amended, effective October 1, 1995, to increase the maximum amount of restitution
1
permitted to $10,000.  Chapter 8, § 1 of the Acts of 1995.  This did not affect the case sub judice since the petitioner’s
delinquent act occurred between June 17 and August 1, 1995. It was recodified without substantive change at Md.
Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, § 808.  See Ch. 585, § 5 of the Acts of 1996.
-3-
(i) As to the property stolen, destroyed, converted,
or unlawfully obtained, the lesser of the fair market value of the
property or $5,000.”  (Emphasis added).1
* * *
The terms of this statute unambiguously limited restitution for stolen property to the
fair market value of that property or $5,000, whichever was less.  In construing this
enactment to determine and effectuate the legislative intention, we give the words of the
statute their ordinary and natural meaning.  At the same time we consider the goal or purpose
to be served by the statute and the evils or mischief the Legislature sought to remedy.  “If the
language of the statute is plain and clear and expresses a meaning consistent with the
statute’s apparent purpose, no further analysis is ordinarily required.”  Gargliano v. State,
334 Md. 428, 435, 639 A.2d 675, 678 (1994); see also Dickerson v. State, 324 Md. 163, 170-
1, 596 A.2d 648, 651 (1991) and Jones v. State, 304 Md. 216, 220, 498 A.2d 622, 624
(1985).
 In enacting the statute we now construe, the Legislature provided the precise method
for calculating the amount of the award of restitution for stolen property.  It limited the 
judgment that the juvenile court could enter for such restitution to “the lesser of the fair
market value of the property or $5,000.”
-4-
In choosing “fair market value” as the ceiling on awards of restitution for property
damage or loss the General Assembly chose language which has a well settled meaning
under Maryland law.  See, e.g., Marchant, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
146 Md. 513, 527, 126 A. 884, 889 (1924) (“ . . . market value is the price which a
purchaser willing, but not compelled, to buy would pay, and which an owner willing, but not
compelled, to sell would accept, for the property.”).  Moreover, the Court of Special Appeals
has consistently held that the only amount of restitution which the statute authorizes is the
fair market value of the stolen or destroyed property.  In re:  William George T., 89 Md.
App. 762, 778, 599 A.2d 886, 894 (1992) (in assessing the amount of restitution under  § 3-
829 of the Courts and  Judicial Proceedings Article for destruction of property “[w]e are
aware that fair market value must be determined by the trial court.); In re:  Trevor A., 55 Md.
App. 491, 501, 462 A.2d 1245, 1250 (1983), cert. dismissed, 299 Md. 428, 474 A.2d 207
(1984) (Section 3-829 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article “requires that the amount
of restitution which is limited to $5000 shall be based on fair market value” of the property
stolen or destroyed.).  We also note the common knowledge that in the field of computer
technology advances are constantly being made so that used equipment depreciates in value
over relatively short periods of time.
We therefore hold that the master erred when he recommended restitution for the
stolen property based upon its replacement cost.  The circuit court and the intermediate 
appellate court also erred when they based restitution on the purchase price of the stolen
-5-
property rather than its fair market value at the time of the theft.
JUDGMENT 
REVERSED; 
CASE
REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL
APPEALS 
WITH 
DIRECTIONS 
TO
REVERSE 
THE 
JUDGMENT 
FOR
RESTITUTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY.  COSTS IN
THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF
SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY
BALTIMORE COUNTY.