Opinion
A153121
06-01-2018
In re LINA A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LINA A., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J16-00633)
The minor in this case, Lina A., appeals from a restitution order of the juvenile court. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel states that he advised his client by telephone, and also in a letter addressed to her last known address, that a Wende brief would be filed and that Lina may personally file a supplemental brief within 30 days raising any issues she may wish to call to the court's attention. The minor filed no such brief.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
On December 2, 2015, while standing on the front porch of her home, the victim observed a white vehicle occupied by three female juveniles and a male juvenile. One of the females, who the victim recognized, was Lina, and a male juvenile, who she also recognized, was Lina's brother. Lina, another female juvenile, and Lina's brother exited the vehicle and began walking toward her in an aggressive manner. Lina was carrying a bottle of pepper spray. The fourth juvenile remained inside the vehicle.
Before anyone reached her, the victim threw her mobile phone, purse, and a few accessories inside her house and partially closed the door.
Lina physically struck the victim, who fell to the ground. The altercation was video recorded by Lina's brother. While on the ground defending herself from Lina's continuing punches, the victim saw one of the minors who accompanied Lina, enter her house and quickly leave with what appeared to be the victim's phone and purse. The white vehicle then pulled in front of the victim's house and Lina and the three juveniles who accompanied her entered the vehicle and, along with the fourth juvenile, drove off.
On July 11, 2017, Lina entered a no contest plea to a single count of misdemeanor battery. (Pen. Code, §§ 242/243, subd. (A).) On August 15, 2017, Lina was adjudged a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)
At the restitution hearing held on September 29, 2017, the victim requested and the chief probation officer recommended restitution for the following items stolen from the victim during commission of Lina's offense: a cellular phone ($749.91), a California identification card ($28), an "otterbox" ($49.99), school supplies ($30), a handbag ($40), wallets ($30), and insurance and deposit for a new phone ($300), for an asserted total of $1,257.91. The amounts of restitution requested for each item were supported by documentation and unchallenged.
The dollar figures for each of the seven items for which restitution was recommended by the probation supervisor were presented to the court in a supplemental report of the chief probation officer marked "read, considered and approved," by the juvenile court. However, due to an apparently inadvertent arithmetical error, the correct total is not $1,257.91, as stated in the report, but $1,227.90, which is $30.01 less than that. We consider the difference de minimis. --------
Defense counsel objected to the imposition of any restitution on two grounds: that (1) the items were not stolen by Lina but by one of her "co-responsibles," and (2) Lina had not been charged with a property crime. Counsel also objected to restitution for the insurance and deposit for the cellular phone, which was $300. Counsel contended that "insurance on this particular product is something that happens in the future and wasn't a loss that the individual [suffered] at the time of the incident."
The court agreed the victim was not entitled to $300 restitution for the cost of insurance and deposit for a new cellular phone, but rejected counsel's contention that restitution should not be required at all because Lina did not herself steal the items. The court reasoned that Lina and her "co-responsibles" acted in concert, and that the theft of the victim's property would not have occurred if Lina had not assaulted the victim.
Subtracting $300 from the $1257.91 recommended by the probation officer, the court awarded the victim restitution in the amount of $957.91.
DISCUSSION
The statute authorizing the juvenile court to impose restitution declares that "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Section 602 [of the Welfare and Institutions Code] 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.) Although the amount of the restitution fine that may be imposed on a minor like Lina who committed a misdemeanor is limited to $100 (id., subd. (b)(2)), there is no limit on the amount of direct restitution such a minor may be required to pay his or her victim for economic loss.
The restitution statute provides that the juvenile court "shall order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states them on the record. A minor's inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling or extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution order. Nor shall inability to pay be a consideration in determining the amount of the restitution order." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (h)(1).)
The record in this case provides no compelling and extraordinary reason why an order imposing full restitution should not issue. The order issued by the court is in all respects lawful.
Our review of the entire record provides no other arguable legal issue warranting further briefing of this appeal.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment, including the restitution order, is affirmed.
/s/_________
Kline, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Stewart, J. /s/_________
Miller, J.