STATE of Alabama
from Talladega Juvenile Court (JU-02-100089.08 and
Nicholas J. Beckham, Childersburg, for appellant.
Marshall, atty. gen., and John J. Davis, asst. atty. gen.,
petitions were filed in the Juvenile Court of Talladega
County, charging D.A.H. with first-degree arson,
see § 13A-7-41, Ala. Code 1975, and
second-degree arson, see § 13A-7-42, Ala. Code
1975. Following a hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated him
delinquent and committed him to the custody of the Department
of Youth Services. On May 11, 2018, the court held a
restitution hearing and awarded $7,408.33 in case number
JU-02-100089.08, and $69,177.92 in case number
JU-02-100089.09. D.A.H. filed a postjudgment motion asking
the court to amend or vacate its order, but that motion was
denied. D.A.H. appeals the juvenile court's order
requiring him to pay restitution.
and Procedural History
November 9, 2017, Officer Chris Vinson with the Sylacauga
Police Department filed delinquency petitions against D.A.H.
Those petitions charged D.A.H. with first-degree arson for
intentionally setting fire to a building, in violation of
§ 13A-7-41, Ala. Code 1975 (JU-02-100089.08), and with
second-degree arson for burning a barn which contained cars,
motorcycles, and other items, in violation of §
13A-7-42, Ala. Code 1975 (JU-02-100089.09). A delinquency
hearing was held during which D.A.H. denied the charges
against him. As a result of that hearing, the juvenile court
adjudicated him delinquent and committed him to the custody
of the Department of Youth Services. The State then moved for
a restitution hearing, and that motion was granted.
11, 2018, a restitution hearing was held during which the
juvenile court heard testimony from victims David Thornton
and Kim Smith. Thornton testified that his barn, along with
the motorcycles, rebuilt automobiles, and automobile parts
inside the barn, was damaged by the fire set by D.A.H. and
his accomplices. According to Thornton, the total cost of the
damage to that property was $203,100. He further testified
that, as a result of the incident, he was going to have to
pay an estimated $22,000 to clean up the damage. On
cross-examination, the defense questioned Thornton
extensively about those amounts. The State and the defense
later stipulated to a claim from Thornton's insurance
company, Progressive Insurance, for restitution in the amount
Kim Smith testified as to the damage that was done to her
rental property. Specifically, she testified that her trailer
and the appliances and furnishings inside the trailer were
all damaged in the fire started by D.A.H. and his
accomplices, which resulted in a total of $22,225 in property
damage and included the estimated $1,500 she would have to
spend to clean up the property and to remove the resulting
trash and debris. On cross-examination, the defense
questioned Smith extensively about those amounts.
grandfather, Calvin Parrett, was the only witness who
testified on D.A.H.'s behalf. At the end of the
restitution hearing, the court took the matter under
advisement. It also stated on the record that it believed
that children ought to be responsible for the damage they
17, 2018, the juvenile court issued a restitution order in
which it ordered D.A.H. to pay Smith $7,408.33 and to pay
Thornton $69,177.92. On May 31, 2018, and June 7, 2018,
D.A.H. filed what appeared to be identical motions to alter,
amend, or vacate the juvenile court's restitution order.
In those motions, D.A.H. argued that the court's
restitution order was contrary to this Court's holding in
D.J.W. v. State, 705 So.2d 521, 524 (Ala.Crim.App.
1996). Specifically, he argued that the Court failed to
consider all the relevant factors required by D.J.W.
in awarding restitution and that the State failed to prove
that the property had been accurately valued by the victims.
hearing was held on D.A.H.'s motions on June 21, 2018.
The primary argument asserted by D.A.H. during that hearing
was that restitution was primarily about the rehabilitation
of the delinquent child and that the juvenile court's
order was contrary to that principle. D.A.H. also asserted
that he had no job, no education, and no means to pay the
restitution. Finally, he argued that the State had failed to
prove that the damaged property ...