Opinion
E074410
06-17-2020
In re J.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.B., Defendant and Appellant.
Melanie L. Skehar, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J282792) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Winston S. Keh, Judge. Affirmed. Melanie L. Skehar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant J.B. (minor) admitted to committing misdemeanor trespass (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (m)). In return, the residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) offense was dismissed. The juvenile court thereafter declared minor a ward of the court and placed him on formal probation in the custody of his mother on various terms and conditions of probation. Following a restitution hearing, the court ordered minor to pay $3,909.97 in direct victim restitution. Minor appeals from the juvenile court's restitution order. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the probation officer's reports. --------
On October 13, 2019, the San Bernardino Police Department was notified regarding minor and two of his cohorts casing and peering into windows of a residence. As officers arrived at the scene, the three juveniles ran from the area and a pursuit ensued. Ultimately, minor and another juvenile were detained without incident.
A witness later handed officers a blue bag that one of the juveniles had hidden in a bush prior to running from the officers. The blue bag contained a computer and paperwork belonging to B.M. A records check of B.M. revealed an address. Officers went to B.M.'s address and found an open rear door and an open rear slider. No one was at home, so the officers went inside the residence and observed the residence had been burglarized. Two footprints on the side of the residence were located. The footprints matched minor and the other detained juvenile. Witnesses identified minor and his two cohorts together going into rear yards of residences.
Officers later discovered another burglarized home in the area. The victim reported that she was missing her rose gold iPhone. The iPhone was later recovered in the other detained juvenile's pant pocket.
On October 16, 2019, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging minor committed residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1).
On October 31, 2019, the juvenile court granted the People's motion to orally amend the petition to add count 2, misdemeanor trespassing (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (m)). Thereafter, pursuant to a plea agreement, minor admitted count 2. In return, count 1 was dismissed. The juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation in the custody of his mother on various terms and conditions of probation, including serving 20 days in juvenile hall and participation in family counseling or any other type of beneficial treatment services. The parties also agreed that the dismissed residential burglary count could be considered for disposition and restitution purposes and that minor would be ordered to pay victim restitution jointly and severally with his coparticipants.
On October 31, 2019, victim R.D. submitted a restitution claim to the probation department in the amount of $3,909.97 for items damaged and stolen. This itemized list consisted of jewelry, a jewelry box, tablet, Coach wallet, cash inside the wallet and inside two separate white envelopes, and the costs for repair to the window and sliding door. The alleged missing cash totaled $2,326. The victim provided images including the cost for the jewelry and the tablet, which appeared to be taken from online sources. No personal photos of the items were given or the estimate for the cost of repairing the sliding glass door.
On December 17, 2019, a formal restitution hearing was held. At that time, victim R.D. testified. In pertinent part, the victim claimed that she lost "some earrings, bracelet, necklace, the jewelry box, a tablet, a wallet, a Coach wallet, and the cash." She also stated that there was $1,000 in an envelope and about $1,300 in a Coach wallet. She explained that the cash was for "Christmas savings and for an emergency."
During cross-examination, minor's counsel asked if she could look at the subpoenaed bank documents that the victim had produced in order to verify the loss. The juvenile court refused stating, "That's an invasion of her privacy." The court also asserted, "I think it's gone a bit too far. [¶] There is no right of confrontation, Counsel." The court referenced a chambers discussion dealing with this issue and that it was offended by this request. The court further explained that it can rely on the probation officer's recommendation despite the inherent hearsay, and that the evidentiary requirements to establish the victim's loss are minimal which include the victim's opinion of the value of the loss. The court cited several cases in support: People v. Cain (2002) 82 Cal.App.4th 81; People v. Resendez (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 98; People v. Baumann (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 67; People v. Hartley (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 126; and People v. Goulart (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 71. After being denied the ability to view the subpoenaed bank documents, minor's counsel did not continue with the cross-examination.
The juvenile court found the victim's testimony to be credible and that the victim's loss was a direct result of minor's criminal conduct. The court then awarded the victim restitution in the amount of $3,909.97 and ordered minor to pay victim restitution in the amount of $3,909.97 jointly and severally with his coparticipant, D.C.
On December 27, 2019, minor timely filed a notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After minor appealed, upon his request, 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 case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, here, minor, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. FIELDS
J.