Opinion
A158787
07-01-2020
In re T.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.T., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J19-00813)
T.T. (Minor) appeals the juvenile court's imposition of a $50 restitution fine pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (b)(2). We affirm.
All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
After a juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging Minor committed multiple offenses, Minor pled no contest to two misdemeanors: resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d). The juvenile court adjudged Minor a ward of the court and imposed various probation conditions.
The underlying facts are not relevant to this appeal. --------
As relevant here, the probation report recommended imposition of a $50 restitution fine. At the disposition hearing, Minor's counsel objected to the amount of the fine. Counsel argued that under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, "the burden [is] on the prosecution to show that the minor has the present ability to pay the fines and fees." Counsel further noted there was no statutory minimum fine for misdemeanor offenses, and requested the fine be reduced to between $10 and $25. The juvenile court declined to reduce the fine, finding it was "not . . . a burdensome amount."
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Minor abandons his challenge based on People v. Dueñas, supra. Instead, he relies solely on the statutory requirements of section 730.6.
Section 730.6 provides that a juvenile court, upon adjudging a minor a ward because of the commission of misdemeanor offenses, must impose a restitution fine of no more than $100. (§ 730.6, subds. (a)(2)(A) & (b)(2).) The fine "shall be imposed regardless of the minor's inability to pay." (§ 730.6, subd. (c).) However, in exercising its discretion to determine the amount of the fine, the juvenile court shall consider factors including "the minor's ability to pay," which in turn includes the minor's "future earning capacity." (§ 730.6, subd. (d)(1)-(2).) "A minor shall bear the burden of demonstrating a lack of his or her ability to pay." (§ 730.6, subd. (d)(2).) In addition, there is a rebuttable presumption that a minor's parents are jointly and severally liable for a restitution fine, "subject to the court's consideration of the parent's or guardian's inability to pay." (§ 730.7, subd. (a).) "The parent or guardian shall have the burden of showing an inability to pay." (Ibid.)
Minor argues there is no substantial evidence of his ability to pay the restitution fine. We need not decide whether Minor forfeited the argument, as the People contend, because we find it meritless. The record includes evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding, most notably, statements in the probation report that Minor's parents are both employed and that Minor's possessions include a cellphone and a PlayStation. Minor argues there is no record evidence of his employment status, the family's financial circumstances, or whether his cellphone and PlayStation were gifts. It was his burden to demonstrate inability to pay (§ 730.6, subd. (d)(2)), and therefore his burden to prove any additional relevant facts. In addition, the juvenile court could properly consider Minor's future earning capacity (§ 730.6, subd. (d)(2)), and Minor points to no record evidence suggesting he will be unable to earn $50 for repayment of the fine.
Minor's remaining arguments are similarly unavailing. Minor suggests his objection below obligated the juvenile court to further inquire into his ability to pay. We decline to so hold, particularly considering that Minor did not seek to admit evidence on the issue, nor did his argument indicate the existence of any evidence that he was unable to pay the fine. Minor argues the juvenile court failed to consider Minor's ability to pay in setting the amount of the restitution fine. " 'The court is presumed to have considered all relevant factors unless the record affirmatively shows the contrary.' " (People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1102.) The record does not show the contrary. In fact, the record indicates the court did consider the factor: The probation report contained information indicative of Minor's ability to pay, Minor objected that the recommended fine amount was too high, and the juvenile court stated the amount was not "burdensome."
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
SIMONS, Acting P.J. We concur. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. /s/_________
BURNS, J.