Argued: November 30, 2018
Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No.
Barbera, C.J., Greene, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty,
Adkins, Sally (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.
key that opens many locks is worth buying. A lock that can be
opened with many keys isn't."
N. Jamal, Ph.D. 
numerous occasions, the Supreme Court has recognized
"the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home
that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of
the Republic." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S.
573, 601 (1980); Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 610
(1999). While the Supreme Court has recognized that this
respect for the sanctity of the home is most often implicated
within the context of the Fourth Amendment warrant
requirement, in the present appeal we are asked to determine
a subsidiary question. Particularly, we must determine,
pursuant to the "direct result" requirement of
Criminal Procedure Article ("CP") § 11-603(a),
whether an award of restitution is proper for rekeying
household locks where the corresponding keys were stolen
during an armed robbery. For the following reasons, we answer
this question in the affirmative and therefore reverse the
judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
juvenile matter, a set of stolen keys to three different
households constitute the central issue of restitution. Two
juveniles, J.S. and J.Y., were walking home from school in
the Largo area of Prince George's County on May 1, 2017.
During their commute, the two were approached by a group of
juveniles, including respondent G.R. An altercation ensued
and the assailants robbed J.S. and J.Y. at knifepoint. The
assailants took from J.S. his backpack and a Samsung cell
phone. Within his backpack was a key ring holding the three
housekeys, two pairs of Jordan sneakers, and a binder. The
keys corresponded to the locks of the exterior doors of three
homes, the homes of J.S.'s mother, father, and sister.
the course of the robbery, J.Y. attempted to intervene and
assist his friend. As a result, G.R. approached J.Y. armed
with a boxcutter and demanded several items from him,
ultimately taking his iPhone and wallet. Thereafter, police
responded to the incident and took statements from J.S. and
J.Y. As the responding officers transported J.S. and J.Y. in
a police cruiser to the police station to take further
statements, J.S. observed three of the alleged assailants
walking down the street. The officers pulled over the police
cruiser, exited the vehicle, and attempted to apprehend G.R.
and the other assailants. When the officers beckoned the
group of juveniles, the alleged assailants took flight.
Although officers were unable to catch the assailants, during
the pursuit G.R. dropped a backpack. Police later determined
that the backpack belonged to J.S. At the time the backpack
was recovered, the keys were missing but it contained
J.Y.'s iPhone and the box cutter used by G.R. in the
robbery. Subsequently, police apprehended G.R. At the time of
his apprehension, he possessed several items stolen from J.S.
These items included the set of housekeys as well as the
second pair of Jordan sneakers stolen from J.S. G.R. was then
taken, processed, and detained at Cheltenham Youth Facility
("Cheltenham"), a juvenile detention center located
in Prince George's County.
point, the arresting officers apparently failed to properly
inventory the keys stolen from J.S. According to the record,
the keys were impounded by police and mistakenly held with
G.R.'s personal property at Cheltenham. As a result,
neither J.S. nor his family members, whose homes the keys
corresponded to, were aware that the keys were in police
custody. Consequently, J.S.'s family members decided to
have the locks of their homes rekeyed, because of the
security risk associated with the stolen keys which,
unbeknownst to J.S. or his family, were being held at
Cheltenham at the time.
18, 2017, before the Circuit Court for Prince George's
County, sitting as a juvenile court, G.R. was charged with
robbery, second-degree assault, and openly carrying a
dangerous weapon. In response, he pleaded involved to all the
charges. On June 16, 2017, the juvenile court held
a restitution hearing. The State sought $120 in restitution
for J.S. as follows: (1) $65 dollars to rekey the locks of
the three homes of which the keys were stolen; (2) $50 for
replacing the cellphone; and (3) $5 for the binder that was
never recovered. During the restitution hearing, defense
counsel brought to the State's, the court's, and J.S.
's attention that the keys had been recovered by police
and mistakenly held with G.R. 's personal belongings at
Cheltenham. Prior to this point, including the period in
which the locks were rekeyed, G.R., his family, the court,
and the State's Attorney were entirely unaware that the
keys had been recovered.
restitution hearing, counsel for G.R. argued to deny
restitution for rekeying the locks under Williams v.
State, 385 Md. 50 (2005) contending that there was
insufficient direct causation to justify the $65 restitution.
In contrast, the State argued that pursuant to Goff v.
State, 387 Md. 327 (2005), the cost of rekeying the
locks was a direct result of the robbery and assault. The
circuit court agreed with the State and ultimately found G.R.
liable for the entire $120 in restitution.
on August 15, 2017, G.R. filed a notice of appeal of the
juvenile court's decision and appealed to the Court of
Special Appeals. In an unreported opinion filed on May 17,
2018, the intermediate appellate court affirmed in part and
vacated in part the juvenile court's order, determining
that the court erred in ordering $65 in restitution to rekey
the three locks. The court determined that the costs of
rekeying the locks was not a direct result of the underlying
robbery and concluded that "while there is undeniably a
causal link between the theft of the keys and J.S.'s
decision to replace his locks, that nexus does not partake of
the directness required by the statute." In re
G.R., No. 853, Sept. Term, 2017, 2018 WL 2263819 (Md.
Ct. Spec. App. May 17, 2018) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). Subsequently, the State petitioned this Court
for writ of certiorari, which we granted on August 10, 2018.
In re G.R., 460 Md. 492 (2018).
an appellate court reviews a circuit court's order of
restitution for abuse of discretion. In re Cody H.,
452 Md. 169, 181 (2017) (citing Silver v. State, 420
Md. 415, 427 (2011)). However, where a circuit court's
order involves "an interpretation and application of
Maryland statutory and case law[, ]" we review its
decision de novo. Goff v. State, 387 Md. 327, 337-38
(2005) (quoting Nesbit v. Government Employees Ins.
Co., 382 Md. 65, 72 (2004)). See also In re Cody
H., 452 Md. at 181. As the present case centers around
an interpretation of the "direct result" language
of CP § 11-603, we review the circuit court's
restitution order under the de novo standard.
statutory framework providing a court's authority to
order restitution is Subtitle 6, Title 11 of the Criminal
Procedure Article. Particularly, CP § 11-603 identifies
appropriate grounds for restitution and, in pertinent part,
provides the following:
(a) A court may enter a judgment of restitution that orders a
defendant or child respondent to make restitution in addition
to any other penalty for the commission of a crime or
delinquent act, if:
(1)as a direct result of the crime or delinquent act,
property of the victim was stolen, damaged, destroyed,
converted, or unlawfully obtained, or its value substantially
(2)as a direct result of the crime or delinquent act, the
(i) actual medical, dental, hospital, counseling, funeral, or
burial expenses or losses;
(ii) direct out-of-pocket ...