Opinion
E073210
01-15-2020
In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.L., Defendant and Appellant.
Michelle T. LiVecchi-Raufi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIJ1800408) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark E. Petersen, Judge. Affirmed. Michelle T. LiVecchi-Raufi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, A.L. (minor), admitted an allegation that he committed robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211). The juvenile court placed minor on informal probation and later ordered that he pay victim restitution in the amount of $1,363.02.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in declining to consider minor's ability to pay when it ordered victim restitution. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual basis for minor's admission was his admission that the allegation was true. We, like appellate counsel, rely on the probation report for our factual recitation noting that this document cannot be relied upon to establish the actual facts of the offenses underlying the allegations against minor for any subsequent legal finding. (People v. Saez (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1206-1208 [Only where the defendant has stipulated that an officer's statements in a report could be used to demonstrate the factual basis of a conviction may the officer's hearsay statements be used to establish the conduct underlying the conviction.]; People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 179 ["A statement by the defendant recounted in a postconviction probation officer's report does not necessarily reflect the nature of the crime of which the defendant was convicted."].) --------
The victim reported that as he was walking home from school, he was followed by three Hispanic male juveniles. One of the juveniles approached the victim and asked to borrow his cell phone. The victim told him that his cell phone was not functioning. Minor, whom the victim recognized from school, punched the victim on the left side of his face, causing his upper lip to split and a large bump on his cheek.
The victim attempted to get away, but minor repeatedly punched him. Another one of the juveniles also began assaulting the victim. The victim fled but was chased by the juveniles and eventually tackled. Minor and the other juvenile took the victim's backpack and pried his cell phone from his hand; minor told the victim, "You say anything, I'll hurt you."
The victim went home and called 911. When officers arrived, the victim was observed to have a large, red, raised bump on his cheek. The victim retrieved his school yearbook and showed officers a picture of minor. Officers went to minor's home, where minor admitted to having the victim's backpack and getting into a fight. Officers located the victim's backpack during a search of minor's room. The victim's cell phone was not recovered.
The People filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging minor had committed robbery (§ 211) and intimidation of a witness, the victim (§ 136.1, subd. (b)). The People further alleged that minor had committed the intimidation of a witness offense by force or the threat of force. (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1).)
Minor admitted the robbery. On the People's motion, the court dismissed the intimidation of a witness allegation. The court declared minor a ward of the court and ordered that he serve five days in juvenile hall, be placed on informal probation, and pay victim restitution in an amount to be determined at a later time.
Minor's counsel later filed a motion for a hearing regarding minor's ability to pay restitution pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 742.16. Personnel from the probation office filed an application for victim restitution for the victim's property, which was never recovered. The total amount of restitution sought was $1,363.02, consisting of $20.00 (cash), $81.56 (wallet), $173.97 (air pods), and $1,087.49 (cell phone).
At the hearing on restitution, the court noted that Welfare and Institutions Code section 742.16 appeared to apply only to clean up, repair, or replacement of property damaged by vandalism and, thus, appeared inapplicable in the instant case. After offering defense counsel the opportunity to respond, the court denied minor's motion and ordered victim restitution in the amount of $1,363.02.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. MENETREZ
J.