Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court No. J220628 of San Diego County, Lawrence Kapiloff, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego S.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
HALLER, J.
Frederick N. appeals a restitution order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6. We affirm.
Unless otherwise specified, further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The trial court declared 16-year-old Frederick N. a ward of the court (§ 602) after sustaining an allegation that he committed grand theft with his companion, Wesley F. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) The trial court placed Frederick on probation with various conditions, including completing 40 hours of community service and a substance abuse treatment and testing program. At a subsequent restitution hearing, the trial court found that Frederick and Wesley were jointly and severally responsible for restitution in the amount of $7,000.
FACTS
On June 30, 2008, Jill G. returned home from vacation and discovered that $7,000 in cash was missing from her home. Jill had placed the money, all in $100 bills, in an envelope. She tucked the envelope in a chest of drawers in the master bedroom closet. Leann L., a friend of Jill's daughter, and Leann's aunt stayed at the home in Jill's absence. Jill did not give them keys to the home. Leann and her aunt denied taking the money.
Leann acknowledged that her girlfriends came to Jill's home "almost 24/7" and a friend, Wesley, stayed for several days. Wesley admitted taking $600 from Jill's bedroom. He said he gave $100 to Frederick. Frederick admitted he entered the bedroom with Wesley and stood by as Wesley took money from the envelope. Frederick accepted $100 from Wesley.
At the adjudicatory hearing, Frederick admitted he unlawfully took money from Jill of a value in excess of $400. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) The parties stipulated "[Frederick] assisted Wesley [F.] in taking money from a residence where they were invited into, and the amount exceeded $400 total taken from the property, " with the actual amount in dispute. The court stated, "So stipulated, understanding there is an issue as it relates to the final amount."
At the restitution hearing, the court took judicial notice of the probation officer's report dated November 13, 2008, including Frederick's statement. Jill stated the $7,000 in the envelope was money she had saved from various sources during the past two years to keep afloat during hard times. She was going through a divorce and needed to have the cash available to her.
Jill presented an investment account statement indicating a $13,000 cash withdrawal on May 31, 2008. She testified she deposited part of the money into her checking account and kept the rest in cash. Jill presented a declaration in her divorce proceeding, filed on June 3, in which she had listed $7,600 in checking, cash and savings accounts, and a $5,000 certificate of deposit. Jill stated she took $600 with her on vacation in mid-June and left $7,000 in the envelope. When she discovered the loss, she filed a claim for $7,000 with her insurance company in which she stated the money was obtained from her savings during the past two years. Jill received $300 from the insurance company, the policy limit for a cash loss.
DISCUSSION
Frederick contends there is insufficient evidence to sustain the court's finding that he and Wesley took $7,000 from Jill's home, and insists the correct amount of restitution should be $600. He argues it is not rational to believe that someone would leave their home unlocked for two weeks with that amount of cash in the home. Frederick contends he demonstrated that other persons had access to Jill's bedroom and may have taken the money.
Section 730.6 governs restitution for economic losses in cases where a minor is adjudicated a ward of the court under section 602. (In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1131 (Johnny M.).) The purpose of section 730.6 is to afford restitution directly from the minor to a victim "who incurs any economic loss as a result of the minor's conduct." (§ 730.6 (a)(1).) The statute directs the trial court to impose restitution in the amount of the economic loss, as determined by the court. (§ 730.6, subd. (h).) The trial court is required to order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so. (Ibid.)
The trial court has broad discretion to determine the amount of the loss and order the minor to pay restitution to the victim. We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. The restitution order will be upheld on appeal where there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court. (Johnny M., supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132; cf. People v. Rubics (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 452, 457, 462 [review of restitution orders under Pen. Code, § 1202.4].)
The trial court's rejection of Frederick's claim that he should be liable only for $600 is supported by the record. Frederick never asserted Wesley took only $600. He stated only that he entered Jill's bedroom with Wesley and stood by while Wesley took money out of the envelope and gave him $100. The $600 amount is based on Wesley's unsworn statement to the police during the initial investigation. The trial court could reasonably determine there was no credible evidence to support a finding that the amount taken was $600. Further, the trial court acted within its discretion when it rejected the inference that Frederick and Wesley did not take $7,000 because other people had access to Jill's bedroom.
Frederick admitted he took an amount of money in excess of $400 in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a), and therefore admitted the conduct that led to the loss. Jill testified $7,000 was missing from her home when she returned from vacation. Her testimony was corroborated by documents showing a $13,000 withdrawal from an investment account on May 31, 2008, a declaration under penalty of perjury that she had $7,600 in checking, cash and savings accounts on June 3, and a $7,000 claim with her insurance company, filed on July 3. Based on Frederick's admission and Jill's testimony and supporting documents, the court reasonably found that the amount taken was $7,000, and the economic loss occurred as a result of Frederick's conduct. (§ 730.6 subd. (a)(1).)
We do not reweigh the evidence the trial court resolved at the restitution hearing. "If there is some evidence to support the court's ruling, disputed or not, we will affirm the [trial] court's order." (People v. Rubics, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 462, citing People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 849.) We conclude there is a factual and rational basis for the court's finding the restitution amount was $7,000, for which the minors were jointly and severally liable. (Johnny M., supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132; People v. Rubics, supra, at p. 1132.) The court acted within its discretion when it ordered Frederick to pay restitution in the amount of $7,000.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., McDONALD, J.