Opinion
B294252
01-29-2020
In re T.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.K., Defendant and Appellant.
Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ54722) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Robert J. Totten, Commissioner. Affirmed. Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Between April 2017 and October 2018, the Los Angeles District Attorney filed five petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, each alleging that minor T.K. (minor) committed residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. Minor admitted the first, second, fourth, and fifth petitions, and the juvenile court sustained the third petition after a contested hearing. On November 28, 2018, after minor admitted the fifth petition, the juvenile court ordered camp placement with a maximum period of confinement of 11 years, four months. The court also ordered a restitution fine of $100.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
One of the petitions alleged a residential burglary with a person present (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 462, subd. (a)), and also alleged giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)).
Minor appeals from the November 28, 2018 disposition order. The only issue minor raises on appeal relates to the imposition of the restitution fine. Citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), minor contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights under the United States and California Constitutions by imposing a restitution fine without determining her ability to pay that fine.
The notice of appeal also purports to appeal from the jurisdictional findings from the contested third petition, but minor raises no issues regarding those findings.
Although Dueñas involved an adult criminal proceeding, minor contends it applies equally to juvenile proceedings under section 602 because the provisions of the restitution statute (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) at issue in Dueñas are comparable to the provisions of section 730.6, the restitution statute governing juvenile adjudications. We need not address this contention in light of our resolution of this appeal. --------
Minor admits that she did not object to the imposition of the restitution fine in the juvenile court. Nevertheless, she argues that Dueñas announced a new constitutional principle that could not have been anticipated at the time of sentencing. Our colleagues in Division Eight of this Appellate District addressed this same argument in People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126 (Frandsen), and concluded that the defendant forfeited the ability to challenge mandatory assessments and a restitution fine by failing to object at sentencing. (Id. at pp. 1153-1155.) We agree with Frandsen that the failure to object to the imposition of a restitution fine at sentencing (or, in this case, disposition) results in forfeiture of the claim on appeal. As Frandsen reasoned, "Dueñas was foreseeable. Dueñas herself foresaw it." (Id. at p. 1154.) Because minor failed to object to the imposition of the restitution fine at the disposition hearing, her claim of error is forfeited. Therefore, we affirm the disposition order.
//
//
//
//
DISPOSITION
The November 28, 2018 disposition order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA, P. J.
We concur:
COLLINS, J.
CURREY, J.