Complainants always want as much of their restitution as they can get up front, because otherwise, it can take a long time for a defendant to pay it off. If your son is getting YO, he's 16-18 years old and it's unlikely that he's working full time. The DA is counting on your being able to pay it off in advance, and he may be bluffing.
Here's what I see. The case is a felony and not yet indicted. The DA has offered to reduce it to a misdemeanor
and give your son YO treatment and 3 years of probation. If you can't pay it off, he's saying that he'll rescind the deal, and maybe he will. but.. .
If he does, he will then have to put the case before a Grand Jury to get an indictment which means a lot of work and bother for him. And then, once the case is indicted and gets across the street, the judge in Supreme has the power to give your son YO, even over the DA's objection. The only difference would be, he'd get felony probation rather than misdemeanor probation, which is 5 years rather than 3.
All of this is by way of saying that you don't need the DA for YO. And because of that, the DA may be willing to let your son put as much down towards the restitution as he can and then pay off the rest. Because if he gets felony probation, it will take him 5 years to pay it off rather than 3, which the complainant will like a lot less than if you get what you want.
So what you want your lawyer to do tomorrow is to adjourn the sentence
if necessary to see if he the DA will be willing to accept a partial lump sum in an amount that won't strap you and then regular payments from there. But you also will want to find out whether your lawyer thinks that there would be any reason for the Supreme Court arraignment judge to deny your son YO if this breaks down.
I think he'll be able to get the 3 years and YO all things considered. What you're asking for is not at all unreasonable.
Edited by FranL on 8/2/2010 at 7:18 PM EST