Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. J221944 Lawrence Kapiloff, Judge.
McDONALD, J.
Defendant E.P. admitted allegations of one count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459 & 460), one count of grand theft (§ 487), and one count of petty theft (§ 484). The court ordered deferred entry of judgment and placed E.P. on probation subject to numerous conditions, including a condition he pay victim restitution of $801. As his sole contention on appeal, E.P. contends the court abused its discretion by requiring him to pay restitution. We reject E.P.'s contention and affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On January 20, 2009, at approximately 10:00 a.m., victim William Chamema left his home. Around 2:30 p.m., Benjamin Roth, a neighbor of Chamema, observed E.P. and another minor (C.J.) enter Chamema's garage. Moments later, E.P. and C.J. walked out of the garage, each carrying a bag. Roth and his roommate chased and caught E.P. and C.J. When Chamema returned home, around 3:00 p.m., officers were investigating the crime scene. Five items were taken from Chamema's garage: two military brown bags, one fluorescent bag, a set of scuba tanks, and a black bag. All items taken from Chamema's garage, except the black bag, were returned during the crime scene investigation. The officers told Chamema the black bag could not be recovered because it was in a nearby sewage drain and dangerous to retrieve. Chamema identified the black bag in the sewage drain and agreed it could not be recovered.
Chamema requested restitution of $275 for the black bag that could not be recovered. The trial court entered an ex parte order for $275 in restitution. E.P. requested an evidentiary hearing concerning the $275 restitution award. At the evidentiary hearing, Chamema testified that the cost of replacing the black bag and its contents totaled $801. The black bag contained personal hygiene items, which according to Chamema's wife were valued at $801. The prosecutor made an offer of proof that she could go online and obtain replacement values for all of the items contained in the black bag.
The trial court found that E.P., or C.J., took the black bag and that the value of the bag totaled $801:
"Well, I find, first of all, that there is certainly circumstantial evidence that that bag was taken out the same day as these other bags. The police find it down in the bottom of a sewage ditch. And I can pretty well imagine that if some kids had gone in there and then zipped open that bag and saw what was in it, they would throw it away. It would not be any good to them and they would ditch it.... I am accepting the list of prices from the owners, and I am finding $801 to be the total amount of additional restitution to be paid."
DISCUSSION
E.P. contends the court abused its discretion by requiring him to pay for the total value of the black bag because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding he took the black bag.
The restitution order was a probation condition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6. That section provides that a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor's conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (a)(1).)
A juvenile court may also look to section 1203.1 to impose reasonable conditions of probation. (In re T.C. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 837, 844-847.) Under section 1203.1, "courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety." (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120-1121 (Carbajal).) A probation condition " 'will not be held invalid unless it "(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to the conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality...." ' " (People v. Jungers (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 698, 702.) Under these principles, a restitution condition is proper if it is "reasonably related either to the crime of which the defendant is convicted or to the goal of deterring future criminality." (Carbajal, at p. 1123, italics added; accord In re I.M. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1209-1210.) A trial court's determination that a restitution order satisfies these factors is entitled to substantial deference and must be upheld unless the court's determination was "arbitrary or capricious, " and exceeds the " ' "bounds of reason." ' " (Carbajal, at p. 1121.)
E.P. contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he personally caused the disappearance of the black bag found in the sewer. However, restitution as a probation condition is not dependent on a finding that the defendant was the cause of the loss. (In re I. M., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1209-1210.) "That a defendant was not personally or immediately responsible for victim's loss does not render an order of restitution improper.... [T]he question simply is whether the order is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality." (Id. at p. 1210; see Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1123-1124.)
The trial court had a reasonable basis to conclude the restitution was reasonably related to E.P.'s criminal conduct. When police arrived at the scene, five items were missing: two military brown bags, one fluorescent bag, a set of scuba tanks, and a black bag. By the time Chamema arrived at the scene, four items had been recovered: two military brown bags, one fluorescent bag, and a set of scuba tanks. The fluorescent bag and one military brown bag were recovered in the possession of E.P. and C.J. at the time they were apprehended by Roth and his roommate. The other military brown bag and the scuba tanks were recovered by police during their investigation. Although E.P. admits entering Chamema's garage only once and taking only one bag (the fluorescent bag), the officer's later discovery of the other military brown bag and the scuba tanks supports the inference that multiple entries were made into the garage, and that additional items were taken beyond those E.P. admitted to taking. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude the black bag discovered in the sewer was taken the same day as the four other items recovered, and that E.P. either personally took the black bag or was an aider and abettor of the crime. Consequently, the trial court's finding that E.P. was involved in the chain of criminal activity that resulted in damage to [complete destruction of] the black bag is reasonably related to the crime of which E.P. was convicted.
We alternatively conclude the court's order was proper under its authority to impose restitution to prevent future criminality. (See Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1123; In re I. M., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 1210.) The trial court's order requiring E.P. to pay $801 as restitution to Chamema serves a rehabilitative function that comports with the policies of juvenile court law. "[A]lthough restitution serves the obvious function of compensating the victims of crime, it also impresses upon the offender the gravity of the harm he has inflicted upon another, and provides an opportunity to make amends.... '... It offers the individual something within reason that he can do here and now, within the limits of his ability, to demonstrate to himself that he is changing.' " (Charles S. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 741, 748.)
E.P. argues this rehabilitative goal does not exist because the evidence was insufficient to find that he took the black bag found in the sewer. However, the trial court found, and we agree, that restitution for the black bag was reasonably related to the crime of which E.P. was convicted. Considering the criminal activity E.P. admitted, i.e. burglary and theft, the trial court's decision to impose restitution to further E.P.'s rehabilitation was a reasonable conclusion, particularly because E.P. had no prior criminal history. To diminish the likelihood of E.P. beginning a criminal career, the court could reasonably find that it was important to impress on him the practical impact of his conduct on victims, and to dissuade him from further involvement with criminal behavior.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J, IRION, J.