In re K.A.A., 2025 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 995 (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a restitution order on a juvenile delinquency case based on a finding that the youth was deprived of their right to effective assistance of counsel.

The Court stated in relevant part: “Finally, K.A.A. contends that her right to effective assistance of counsel was violated in the restitution proceeding. Juvenile-delinquency proceedings “must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.” In re Welfare of B.A.H., 845 N.W.2d 158, 163 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 30, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967)). As part of that due-process right, juveniles have the right to effective assistance of counsel in delinquency proceedings. See Gault, 387 U.S. at 41. We will consider an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for the first time on appeal if the record is adequately developed. Voorhees v. State, 627 N.W.2d 642, 649 (Minn. 2001). The record is adequate to determine the limited ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issue in this case.

. . . .

We conclude there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failure to submit the affidavit necessary to preserve K.A.A.’s restitution challenge, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Given the factors that the district court was required to consider before ordering restitution, K.A.A.’s economic circumstances, and the year and mileage of the cosmetically damaged vehicle, it is reasonably probable that the district court would not have found that K.A.A. had the ability to pay $8,963.83 in approximately eight months or that $8,963.83 was a reasonable amount of restitution that advanced public safety and was in K.A.A.’s best interests. In sum, K.A.A. was deprived of her right to effective assistance of counsel.”