Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Associate Justice Kathleen Salii and Associate Justice Alexandra F. Foster in their opinion order dated July 7 reversed the July 23, 2008 order issued by Associate Justice Lourdes F. Materne to respondent Roderick Blanco.
The Justices agreed with Blanco’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter its modification of restitution order five and half months after the original order was entered.Blanco challenged the trial court’s July 23, 2008 order which ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $10, 147.19.The July 23, 2008 order was the second order issued by the trial court. The first order was issued on February 23, 2008 setting full restitution at $112.90.Blanco argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter a second order increasing restitution. Blanco pleaded guilty to one count of failure to yield the right of way to vehicle on November 1, 2007 and was sentenced to 20 hours of community work service and restitution which amount is to be determined by the Probation Office. The Probation Office issued a determination of restitution on February 5, 2008 and determined an amount of $112.90 be paid by Blanco to the victim.The trial court on February 12, 2008 issued an order setting full restitution at $112.90. The order did not state that further restitution would be determined. It did not state also that the order was not a final judgment on restitution.One week later, the Probation Office issued a supplementary determination of restitution adding the cost of the motorcycle repairs and setting restitution at $12, 548.19.Blanco objected to the additional restitution and argued that the court had already set restitution on February 12.The trial court ordered the Probation Office to file receipts and evidence of the new restitution amount. The Probation Office submitted the evidence and new report on July 22 and the trial court signed an order on July 23 directing Blanco to pay $10, 147.19 in restitution.The Appellate Division in reversing the trial court’s order said that the trial court’s February 12, 2008 order did not contain a “clerical mistake” but rather a judicial error in prematurely rendering judgment with respect to restitution.“While the original determination of restitution should also have stated that further restitution remained to be calculated, it is the trial court’s responsibility to render a fair judgment and not the Probation Office,” the Justices order stated.“The trial court could have waited to render its order until full restitution was determined, or alternatively indicated in its order that restitution was only partial. The trial court cannot simply render that appears to be a final judgment of full restitution and then subsequently modify it at will,” the Supreme Court’s order added.The Appellate Division said that the trial court shall retain limited jurisdiction to oversee that Blanco completes payment of the February 12, 2008 restitution order.
