In re A.B.
Filed 1/31/14 In re A.B. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El
Dorado)
----
In re
A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
A.B.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
C072712
(Super. Ct. No. PDL20120015)
The
minor A.B. admitted she came within the meaning of
produce great bodily injury on James E., a felony (Pen. Code, § 245, subd.
(a)(4)). The
probation for up to six months under section 725, subdivision (a), subject to
certain terms and conditions including that she pay victim restitution in the
amount of $1,820, jointly and severally with two other participants in the
assault upon the victim, with the opportunity for a hearing at which the minor
could dispute the amount. Five months
later, the minor’s attorney filed a
the restitution order. After a hearing,
the court ordered the minor to pay $1,639, jointly and severally with the other
participants.
The
minor appeals from the restitution order. The minor contends that (1) the juvenile
court erroneously determined it had jurisdiction to impose restitution after
the minor had completed informal probation, (2) her due process rights
were violated when the juvenile court declined to watch a videotape of the assault
on the victim to determine who landed which blow to the victim in order to
determine the amount of restitution to levy against the minor, and (3) the
juvenile court erroneously set a maximum term of confinement when it granted
probation. We reject the minor’s
contentions. We conclude the juvenile
court had jurisdiction to review the restitution amount ordered at the
disposition hearing, there was no due
process violation because joint and several liability had been established
at the disposition hearing, and the minor forfeited any challenge to the
maximum term of confinement because she did not appeal from the disposition
order. Accordingly, we affirm the
restitution order.
FACTS
On
January 31,
2012, during a fight between
Christian M. and the victim (James E.), the minor and Rebecca S. punched
and kicked the victim 47 times in the face and back while the victim was on the
ground in a fetal position, covering his face and stomach. The minor struck the victim 20 times. After the minor and Rebecca stopped,
Christian returned and used his knee to strike the victim in the face, breaking
the victim’s tooth. Besides a broken
tooth, the victim sustained numerous injuries including a black eye, laceration
in his mouth, multiple bruises on his forearms, and pain in his back. The assault was recorded on several cell
phones/iPods.
DISCUSSION
The
minor contends the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to impose
restitution in the amount of $1,639 because she had completed informal
probation. We conclude the juvenile
court had jurisdiction to review the restitution amount ordered at the
disposition hearing.
On
March 1, 2012, the victim signed a victim impact statement for the probation
department and claimed $1,820 in monetary losses for medical expenses: “dental $1,820.00 . . . his tooth
was broke in 1/2 (half) + went to Emergency Rm to be checked out.â€
On
March 16, 2012, the juvenile court granted the minor probation for a term of
six months subject to certain terms and conditions including, as recommended by
the probation department, that the minor pay victim restitution in the amount
of $1,820, jointly and severally with Christian and Rebecca, reserving to the
minor the opportunity for review of the amount if disputed. The minor’s attorney stated he had inspected
the victim impact statement but had not seen any of the underlying documents to
support the amount and the prosecutor “assured [him] that those will be coming
to [him] soon.†The court responded that
the minor’s right to challenge the
restitution order had been reserved. The
minor’s attorney commented, “I understand, your Honor. Just for the purposes of ten days to
challenge, I don’t think that should be started yet until I receive copies --†The court replied, “Oh, okay.†Later, in stating the terms and conditions of
probation, the court ordered the minor to pay restitution jointly and severally
with Christian and Rebecca and that the minor’s attorney would explain to the
minor what joint and several liability meant.
The
minor waited until the probation term had almost expired to request a contested
restitution hearing. On August 2, 2012, the minor’s attorney requested that a hearing be set for August 20, 2012. On August 20, 2012, the People’s request for a continuance was granted to October 1, 2012.
On
August 21,
2012, the minor’s attorney filed a written
opposition to restitution, noting the hearing date of October 1, 2012. The minor’s attorney argued
(1) the victim had not presented
invoice to justify the amount, (2) the minor should not be held jointly
and severally liable for victim restitution, and (3) the minor should not
be held responsible for the victim’s
Christian M. was responsible for that
On
September 6, 2012, the probation department notified the court that when it
granted probation in March, it had ordered $1,820 in victim restitution to be
paid jointly and severally with the minor’s co-participants and the minor’s
term of probation would expire in September, noting the minor had successfully
completed the terms of probation.
On
October 1,
2012, the prosecutor sought another
continuance. The minor’s attorney sought
a severance from the other co-participants and objected to the juvenile court
proceeding on the issue of restitution, suggesting the court lacked
jurisdiction because the minor’s probation had ended on September 16,
2012. The court found it had
jurisdiction, denied severance, and set the contested hearing for October 16, 2012.
On
October 16,
2012, the juvenile court held a hearing on
victim restitution, reiterating that it found it had jurisdiction. The prosecutor presented the victim impact statement,
a copy of the victim’s dental bill, and a patient ledger. The juvenile court concluded $1,639 was
justified by the documentation and awarded that amount, to be paid jointly and
severally by the minor, Rebecca, and Christian.
Section
725, subdivision (a), permits the juvenile court to grant a section 602 minor,
i.e., one who has committed a criminal act, probation “for a period not to
exceed six months†without adjudging the minor a ward of the court. As a condition of the minor’s probation,
section 730.6 requires the court to impose restitution to a victim who has
suffered economic loss due to the minor’s conduct. (§ 730.6, subds. (a)(2)(B), (
Generally,
the six-month limit on probation established by section 725 precludes a court
from imposing conditions of probation that extend beyond that term. “ ‘ “The power of the court with regard to
probation is strictly statutory, and the court cannot impose a condition of
probation which extends beyond the maximum statutory period of probation.†’
†(In
re Trevor W. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 833, 839.)
Here,
the minor contends the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to order victim
restitution because her six-month probation term had expired. She is mistaken. Contrary to the minor’s contention, the
juvenile court did not first impose victim restitution at the October 2012
hearing held after her probation period expired. The amount of restitution had been ordered at
the disposition hearing on March 16, 2012. Based on the victim impact statement, the
court ordered victim restitution in the amount the victim claimed, reserving to
the minor the opportunity for a contested hearing to challenge the amount.
Five
months after disposition, the minor challenged the amount of restitution and a
hearing was set. The court had
jurisdiction to consider the minor’s challenge to the restitution order because
the minor filed her challenge before the expiration of her six-month probation
term. The court granted the prosecutor’s
continuance motions. The minor does not
contend the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting the continuance
motions.
At
the conclusion of the October hearing on the amount of restitution, the
juvenile court lowered the amount of
restitution that the minor must pay jointly and severally with Christian and
Rebecca. Assuming the court did not have
jurisdiction to review the amount, the minor would be liable for the original,
disposition. Section 730.6, subdivision
(l), provides in relevant part, as
follows: “Any portion of a restitution
order that remains unsatisfied after a minor is no longer on probation shall
continue to be enforceable by a victim pursuant to subdivision (r) until the
obligation is satisfied in full.†Section
730.6, subdivision (r), allows the restitution order to be enforced under Penal
Code section 1214 [money judgment enforceable as a civil judgment].
We
conclude the juvenile court had jurisdiction to review the amount of the
restitution order.
At
the hearing on the minor’s challenge to the amount of the restitution order,
the juvenile court declined to review a videotape of the assault, concluding it
was irrelevant. The minor contends the
juvenile court violated her due process rights because the videotape would demonstrate
she was not acting in concert with Christian when he broke the victim’s tooth,
a loss the restitution amount covers. We
conclude there is no due process violation because joint and several liability
had been established at the disposition hearing.
The
facts underlying the allegation of assault by Christian, Rebecca, and the minor
reflect that Christian and the victim fought, Rebecca and the minor kicked and
punched the victim when he was on the ground in a fetal position, and Christian
returned and broke the victim’s tooth.
The minor admitted committing an assault by means of force likely to
produce great bodily injury as did Rebecca.
Christian admitted committing a battery.
When the juvenile court granted probation and ordered payment of $1,820
in victim restitution to be joint and several with Christian and Rebecca, the
minor’s attorney was only concerned that the victim had not presented any
documentation such as an invoice to support the amount of $1,820. The minor’s attorney did not claim the minor
was not responsible for Christian’s conduct or that the minor should not be
held jointly and severally liable for the restitution amount to cover the lost
tooth.
At
the hearing on the minor’s challenge to the amount of the restitution order,
the minor’s attorney requested that the juvenile court review the videotape of
the assault, claiming neither the minor nor Rebecca was “acting in concertâ€
with Christian when he “kneed the victim in the face, causing the chipped
tooth, for which restitution is being sought.â€
Arguing that the issue should have been litigated at the jurisdictional
phase, the prosecutor objected to viewing the videotape in order to “parse out
what injuries happened when†and claimed the minors were acting in concert. Christian’s attorney also objected to viewing
the videotape, claiming the issue of joint and several liability had been
settled. Rebecca’s attorney joined the
minor’s request to view the videotape, arguing the fight with the girls was
over when Christian approached the victim and kneed him in the face. The prosecutor stated that “[b]ut for the
girls beating [the victim] up and leaving him on the ground, he wouldn’t have
been on the ground for [Christian] to come up and cause the injury to the
tooth.â€
Having
read the detention report and the file, the juvenile court commented that “this
was all part of an ongoing m[elee].†The
court also stated the proceeding concerned whether the costs were reasonably
related to the injury.
The
minor’s attorney argued the hearing should also resolve whether the restitution
should be joint and several. The minor’s
attorney also disagreed that “this was some sort of m[elee].†The prosecutor stated that “it’s all one
incident they all pled to.†Christian’s
attorney agreed.
The
juvenile court concluded the videotape was not relevant, everyone was on notice
when the detention report described the victim’s injuries, and the time for
contesting responsibility or culpability was at the jurisdictional phase of the
proceeding.
The
minor forfeited any challenge to joint and several liability because the minor
did not appeal the March 16, 2012 order. At the March 2012 disposition hearing, the
juvenile court granted probation and ordered the minor to pay victim
restitution, as recommended by probation, in the amount of $1,820, jointly and
severally with Christian and Rebecca, reserving to the minor the opportunity to
challenge the amount of restitution.
By
admitting the allegation that she committed an assault by means of force likely
to produce great bodily injury, the minor admitted her culpability and
responsibility for the victim’s losses and her obligation to pay does not
depend on the culpability of Christian.
(People v. Madrana (1997)
55 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1051; People v.
Zito (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 736,
746.) The juvenile court evaluated the
evidence and determined the victim’s economic losses were incurred as a result
of the minor’s conduct, that is, her assault by means of force likely to
produce great bodily injury. The court
also provided the minor with an opportunity to challenge the victim’s claimed
losses.
There
was no due process violation.
Finally,
the minor complains the juvenile court set the maximum term for her offense at
four years. The court did so at the
March 2012 hearing when it granted probation.
The minor’s notice of appeal states she is appealing from the October
16, 2012 order, “ordering restitution in the amount of $1,639 to victim and
will be paid joint and several with the co-participants.†She did not appeal from the March 2012 order
or claim in her notice of appeal that she was challenging the March 2012
disposition order. Thus, the minor has
forfeited any claim about the juvenile court setting the maximum term of four
years for her offense.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment (restitution order) is affirmed.
HOCH , J.
We concur:
ROBIE , Acting P.
J.
BUTZ , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Undesignated
statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Section 730.6,
subdivision (h)(4), provides that “[a] minor shall have the right to a hearing
before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution†and
“[t]he court may modify the amount . . . on the motion of
. . . the minor.â€
