Opinion
A153782
08-09-2018
In re J.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J17-00512)
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, appellate counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record. She has advised us she reviewed the record in the matter before filing her Wende brief. Appellate counsel advised appellant of this determination. She told appellant he may file a supplemental brief in the case, but must do so within 30 days of the date after counsel's brief is filed. Appellant has not filed any supplemental brief within the 30-day period. The appeal is authorized pursuant to Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (b).
Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 24, 2017, the District Attorney of San Mateo County filed an original juvenile wardship petition, alleging that on April 21, 2017, appellant resisted and delayed a police officer in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (count I); reentered a school campus after a school administrator asked him to leave in violation of section 626.6, subdivision (a) (count II); and disrupted a school by entering a school building without lawful business, in violation of section 626.8, subdivision (a) (count III).
Under the terms of a plea bargain, appellant entered an admission to count III on April 24, 2017. The prosecutor dismissed the remaining counts. The case was transferred for disposition to the juvenile court in Contra Costa County, the county where appellant resides.
The disposition hearing was held on May 30, 2017. The Contra Costa County court found appellant a ward of the court. It ordered minor to reside with his mother and placed him on probation. Conditions of probation included counselling, drug testing, curfew, and restitution in an amount determined by the juvenile court. On September 21, 2017, the juvenile probation department submitted a report documenting claims by the Daly City Police Department seeking restitution for damages to a police car in the amount of $1,777.27. A hearing on the issue of restitution was held on December 12, 2017, and January 26, 2018. After the hearing was completed, the court ordered the appellant to pay $1,777.27 as restitution to the Daly City Police Department.
On February 23, 2018, appellant filed his timely notice of appeal challenging the restitution order.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On April 21, 2017, the Daly City Police Department received a call that a person was trespassing on the campus of Jefferson High School. Officer Lucas Taylor arrived on the campus and noticed appellant had just departed the school. Taylor drove down the street to appellant and stopped him. Once detained by Taylor, appellant became verbally uncooperative. Officer Taylor decided to place the minor in handcuffs. A struggle began between the two. This caused the minor and Officer Taylor to fall onto the police vehicle. The impact by the two men falling onto the automobile caused a dent on the door. A second responding officer to the scene, Louis Jackson, saw appellant and Officer Taylor fall onto the passenger door of the vehicle. Jackson helped Taylor subdue the minor and place him under arrest.
At the restitution hearing, Officers Taylor and Jackson testified, as well as appellant. No other witnesses were presented.
Before the incident with appellant, Officer Taylor had reviewed his vehicle for any damage. There was no dent in the rear passenger door. Minor denied he fell towards the door when he struggled with Officer Taylor. He maintained he did not cause any dent to the vehicle.
At the restitution hearing, photos were presented. There was some rust on the door indicating long-term wear on the car. The prosecutor argued Officer Taylor had checked the car door before the incident and saw no dent. The prosecutor also argued the impact of Taylor and the minor, who was a football player, on the door caused the damage. The officer had the right to exercise control over appellant under the circumstances.
Presented at the hearing was documentation from Serramonte Ford, the outside repair service used by the Daly City Police Department to fix the dent in the door. The total amount to repair stated in the work order was $1,243.74. The trial court imposed a restitution order of $1,777.27. The reason for the difference between the repair cost and the amount of restitution ordered by the court is not indicated in this record.
DISCUSSION
The trial court imposed a restitution sum of $1,777.27. The amount was aimed at covering the damage to the police vehicle caused by the scuffle between appellant and police. The court believed the damage to the car was caused by the struggle. A restitution award under these circumstances is appropriate. (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(A) [for damaged property, restitution may consist of the cost to "actual[ly]" repair the damaged property]; see People v. Ortiz (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 791, 797.)
The amount of restitution should cover the cost to repair the police vehicle. According to the repair order in this record, that amount is $1,243.74. While the trial court did order appellant pay $1,777.27 in restitution, the record does not indicate anything to increase the amount of restitution beyond the cost the Daly City Police Department realized when they had Serramonte Ford repair the damaged door. That appears to be cost of repairing the actual damage appropriate under section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(A). Therefore, we will reduce the restitution award. Appellant is ordered to make restitution in the amount of $1,243.74.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect a restitution order of $1,243,74. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Dondero, J. We concur: /s/_________
Humes, P. J. /s/_________
Banke, J.