Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JV123558
DAVIS, J.
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained a charge of misdemeanor battery against D.A., the minor. The minor was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed in her mother’s home under the supervision of the probation officer. The court also imposed a restitution fine of $25.
On appeal, the minor contends the restitution fine must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new hearing on the fine because the court failed to exercise informed discretion in imposing the fine. As a backup argument, the minor contends that if we find her counsel’s failure to object to the amount of the fine forfeits the issue for appeal, then she received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The People contend the minor’s failure to object forfeits the issue. The People also contend that the minor cannot show ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) the court exercised its discretion by reducing the fine; (2) counsel’s failure to object is explainable as a tactical decision; and (3) it is not reasonably likely that, had counsel objected, she would have received a more beneficial result.
We shall reduce the fine to one dollar ($1).
DISCUSSION
Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, which governs restitution and restitution fines in juvenile cases, provides that a restitution fine imposed in matters involving misdemeanor offenses shall “not exceed one hundred dollars ($100).” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)(2).)
The record shows that after imposing conditions of probation, the following dialogue occurred: “[THE COURT:] Now, they have a restitution fine for $100. What’s the minimum? Isn’t it 25? [¶] MR. MILLER (prosecutor): I believe it is. [¶] THE COURT: I’ll reduce that to $25.” Defense counsel remained silent on this issue.
Even if the issue is forfeited by the minor’s counsel’s failure to object, the minor would prevail on her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. From the court’s comments, it is clear that the court, after having just listened to the minor’s mother’s explanation of the financial difficulties she was having, intended to impose a minimum restitution fine. However, the court imposed a $25 fine under the mistaken belief that $25 was the minimum it could impose. Consequently, the court’s reduction of the fine to $25 was not an act of informed discretion by the court. (See People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8 [“Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the ‘informed discretion’ of the sentencing court”].)
The People claim counsel’s failure to object may be explained as a tactical decision because the court had already made a “generous reduction” of the fine. We disagree. It was the court’s intention that the reduction be to the minimum, rather than just a “generous” amount. Counsel should have objected and pointed out that the statute did not specify a minimum amount. Also, because the court intended to impose the minimum amount, it is likely that had counsel objected, the minor would have obtained a more beneficial result.
Since Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (b)(2) requires imposition of a restitution fine not to exceed $100, we shall reduce the fine to $1.
DISPOSITION
The restitution fine of $25 is reduced to $1. The juvenile court is directed to amend its records accordingly and to inform the necessary parties of the change. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P.J., NICHOLSON, J.