Court Opinion

ID: 9759786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:28:04.791388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:04.640366
License: Public Domain

VAN der VOORT, Judge,
concurring and dissenting: While I agree with the Majority’s Opinion insofar as it holds that the lower court went beyond its authority when it ordered that the appellant pay to the use of Berks County $100.00 and court costs, and to make restitution in an amount determined by consultation between his counsel and the probation office, I disagree with the Majority’s Order simply reversing the lower court. On our recent decision in the case of In Re: John Joseph Gardini, 243 Pa.Super. 338, 365 A.2d 1252 (1976), we held that an order directing a child who had been adjudicated delinquent to pay a fine of $200.00 to the Common*436wealth was improper because it went beyond the scope of the court’s discretion in formulating an order of disposition. Similarly in this case, the order directing the appellant to pay a sum of $100.00 to the use of Berks County goes beyond the authority of the lower court and must be vacated.
With respect to the order of the court directing appellant to pay court costs and to make restitution, I would vacate and remand the case to the lower court for a proper disposition consistent with the Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1464, No. 333, 11 P.S. § 50-333 (b) and the Act of July 27, 1967, P.L. 186, No. 58, 11 P.S. §§2001-2005 to determine whether or not the parents of the juvenile should make any restitution and/or pay costs.