Opinion
A131892
10-11-2011
In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.M., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. JW10-6269)
At a jurisdictional hearing, defendant J.M. admitted that he trespassed into a commercial building in violation of Penal Code section 602, subdivision (m), and admitted a misdemeanor receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496. As part of the negotiations, pending felony charges were dismissed. The court committed defendant to out-of-home placement. After a restitution hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay $4,484.35, jointly with a codefendant, to the victim of the property damage. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal only as to the restitution order.
Defendant's counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so. After independent review of the record, we conclude there are no arguable issues to brief and affirm the judgment.
Statement of Facts
A security guard reported a burglary that had occurred in a warehouse at 955 Egbert Street in San Francisco on the afternoon of April 6, 2010. A short time later, San Francisco police officers responded to a burglar alarm at the same location and apprehended three juveniles, including defendant, running from the warehouse lot. The front door, lock, and interior of the warehouse had sustained extensive damage. The floor was torn up as part of a marijuana growing effort.
At the restitution hearing, Kathy Devincenzi, president of the corporation that owns the building, testified about losses totaling $4,484.35. She itemized the cost of damage to the front door, new locks, new door jam, repair of the floor, windows and walls. She submitted copies of receipts to the probation department for the extensive damage. She also testified about the value of her lost time in organizing the repairs and for assisting in the prosecution of the case. Other verified out-of-pocket expenses were submitted. Defendant's counsel cross-examined Ms. Devincenzi about the company's losses. The damage was described in more detail in response to questions from codefendant's counsel.
Defendant's counsel called a representative of the alarm security company to explain how the system worked, alarm activity and calls made on the day in question. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court ordered both defendants to jointly and severally pay the restitution.
Discussion
The court properly exercised its discretion in ordering the restitution. Under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(A) victims have the right to compensation for repair of damaged property. Time spent as a witness or assisting in prosecution of the case is recoverable under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(E). Substantial evidence supported the court's determination of the amount of restitution. There are no errors in the proceedings.
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
Dondero, J.
Banke, J.