In re A.S.
Filed 9/7/11 In re A.S. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.S., Defendant and Appellant. | A131550 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 80895) |
A.S. (the minor) appeals from a dispositional order of the juvenile court entered after a finding that he had committed attempted vandalism and an order that he pay $3,000.02 in restitution. The minor’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issue for appeal and asking this court to make an independent review of the record. The minor was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief. After independently reviewing the record, we find no error or cause for further briefing and therefore shall affirm.
Background
On October 13, 2010, a juvenile wardship petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) alleging that the minor, then 15 years of age, had attempted to vandalize property (Pen. Code, §§ 594, subd. (b)(2), 664) and that he had committed misdemeanor resisting arrest. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)).
The probation report states that the minor was arrested on August 20, 2010, after San Mateo police responded to a report of juveniles shooting air soft guns at lights. When the officers spotted the juveniles and ordered them to stop, the juveniles fled on foot. During the pursuit, police were contacted “by a couple of subjects who reported their vehicle windows were broken.” Police located the minor and other juveniles in an apartment where the air soft gun was in plain view. Some of the other juveniles admitted to throwing rocks through the windows of two cars. The minor told police that he heard their order to stop but continued running.
An amended petition was filed on December 15, 2010, alleging three counts of felony vandalism, one count of attempted felony vandalism, one count of misdemeanor vandalism, and one count of resisting arrest. At the jurisdiction hearing on December 20, the minor admitted the allegation of attempted vandalism in the amended petition, which specified attempted vandalism of the property of Martin Komindr. The remaining allegations were dismissed.
On February 2, 2011, the court held a restitution hearing at which the minor agreed to pay, jointly and severally with the other juveniles, $1,356 in restitution to one victim, $2,752 to a second, and to $177.24 to another victim. The court continued the matter for an evidentiary hearing concerning the amount of restitution due Komindr. On March 8, 2011, at the continued restitution hearing, Komindr testified that he drove a red BMW convertible, and that it was “in mint condition” before August 20, 2010. After the vandalism occurred, there were scratches on the body of the car, a window was broken, there was broken glass and a rock on the car seats, and a nick on the passenger door interior side panel. The repair bill was $3,000.02. Minor’s counsel argued that some of the items that were repaired were not reported as damaged the day Komindr took the car to the body shop and, therefore, that those damages were not caused by the vandalism. The court found that all of the repairs were necessary to return the car to its previous condition and ordered the minor to pay restitution to the various victims, including $3,000.02 to Komindr. The minor timely noticed an appeal.
Discussion
The notice of appeal specifies that the appeal is taken from the order “granting restitution in the amount of $3,000.02 to” Komindr. This court is therefore limited to reviewing that portion of the restitution order. “ ‘It is elementary that an appeal from a portion of a judgment brings up for review only that portion designated in the notice of appeal. [Citation.] While it is true that notices of appeal are to be liberally construed with a view to hearing causes on their merits [citation], we are of the opinion that the notice filed in the present case does not present “a mere misdescription” of the judgment, calling for the application of said rule, but rather . . . that portion of the judgment appealed from is so clear and unmistakable as to preclude [review of other portions of the judgment].’ ” (Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 625.)
Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (a), states, “It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Section 602 who incurs any economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor.” “The economic loss must be ‘as a result of the minor’s conduct.’ [Citation.] This is language of causation. But nothing in section 730.6 requires that the minor’s conduct be the sole cause of loss by the victim, and such a conclusion would be at odds with the principle that restitution laws are to be broadly and liberally construed.” (In re A.M. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 668, 673.) Here, the minor was arrested along with a group of juveniles, all of whom were vandalizing cars. Although the minor admitted only to attempted vandalism of Komindr’s vehicle, the juvenile court has broad powers to make restitution orders. The minor’s actions with his confederates were the cause of the damage to the vehicle and within the principles of restitution.
The minor was at all times represented by competent counsel.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Pollak, Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Siggins, J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
