Opinion
C084892
05-07-2018
In re D. J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D. J., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JV136463)
After the minor D. J. admitted to one count of misdemeanor unlawful taking or driving a vehicle, the juvenile court ordered him jointly and severally liable for $10,000 in victim restitution. On appeal, the minor challenges that restitution order arguing no evidence indicated he took anything from the victim's home or truck. The People agree and ask that the restitution order be vacated. We concur and will vacate the order.
BACKGROUND
On September 2, 2016, the victim's home was burglarized and his truck was stolen. In the truck was a bag with at least $10,000 in cash. The money was income from the victim's restaurant. On September 17, 2016, an officer pulled over the stolen truck. The minor was in the front passenger seat. No money was found in the truck.
Two counts were alleged: unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle and receiving a stolen vehicle.
At a settlement conference, defense counsel told the juvenile court the minor would admit to unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle, a misdemeanor. In exchange the other count would be dismissed, and he would be time served.
While the juvenile court was taking the minor's admission, defense counsel interrupted, briefly conferred with the prosecutor, and then told the court: "[A]t this point, I think I would be more comfortable passing this. My concern is it's pled September 2nd through September 17th, and . . . he was contacted driving the car . . . on the 17th. And the victim in this case is claiming $20,000 stolen property for a burglary occurring September 2nd. [¶] So if it's pled that way, I'm not comfortable with him entering an admission for possessing or driving a vehicle on the date the vehicle was stolen because that could potentially subject him to restitution liability."
The prosecutor responded: "I don't want to do anything that cuts off the victim's ability to claim restitution. I'm not saying this individual is responsible for the burglary, but that that property was in the car when it was taken."
Three months later, defense counsel told the court the minor would admit to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle as a misdemeanor and his term would be time served. The court informed the minor that the issue of restitution would be decided at a later date.
The prosecutor provided a factual basis that in between September 2 and September 17, 2016, the minor unlawfully took the victim's vehicle. The minor was in the passenger seat when the car was pulled over. He admitted to seeing the car on the side of the road with the keys on the ground. He took the car, planning to dump it after using it. The car had been taken during the September 2 burglary, but no evidence linked the minor to the burglary.
Defense counsel agreed to the factual basis but reiterated the minor was not admitting to the burglary, and he added that fingerprints from the burglary came back negative as to the minor.
The minor then admitted to a misdemeanor violation of unlawful taking or driving a vehicle. The juvenile court ordered a time-served 60 days of home supervision and $25 in restitution.
A month later, a contested restitution hearing was held before Judge Gary Ransom, with a different prosecutor participating. The victim testified at the hearing, but ultimately conceded he did not know exactly how much money was in the bag taken from the truck.
Defense counsel argued the victim's economic loss did not result from the minor's conduct, maintaining nothing connected the minor to the burglary. The prosecutor argued there were no superseding events in the 15 days between the burglary and the arrest.
The juvenile court ordered the minor jointly and severally liable for $10,000 in restitution adding, "That's why you don't do crime, folks, because all the case law says you got to make the victim whole."
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the parties agree the restitution order must be reversed. The minor argues nothing connected his crime to the $10,000 taken in the burglary and alternatively substantial evidence did not support the victim's restitution request. The People similarly maintain the restitution order is invalid because it was not based on conduct the minor was found to have committed. We agree with the parties.
Restitution awards are generally vested in the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion appears. (In re Cristian S. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 510, 520.) But a trial court cannot make an order not authorized by law or find facts not supported by substantial evidence. (Ibid.)
Here, we agree with the parties that the order of restitution must be reversed because substantial evidence did not support it. The minor admitted to unlawfully taking or driving the vehicle and told police he had found the truck on the side of the road and took it. But no evidence or admission of the minor links him to the September 2, 2016, burglary or the theft of the bag of money. We will therefore reverse the restitution order.
DISPOSITION
The order of victim restitution is reversed. The juvenile court is directed to amend its disposition order accordingly and forward certified copies to the relevant authorities.
/s/_________
Robie, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Murray, J. /s/_________
Duarte, J.