Filed 4/25/17 In re I.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yolo)
----




In re I.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C082356


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

I.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. JD-15-98)







I.M. (minor) contends on appeal the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering victim restitution and making him jointly and severally liable for the medical expenses of assault victim Z.R. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As part of a plea deal, in October 2015, minor pleaded no contest to felony dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), misdemeanor burglary of a local high school (§§ 459, 17, subd. (b)(4)), and misdemeanor receiving stolen property, namely a skateboard (§§ 496, subd. (a), 17, subd. (b)(4)). As part of the plea agreement, the following charges were dismissed against minor “for consideration”: second degree robbery against Z.R. (§§ 211, 212.5), assault with a deadly weapon upon Z.R. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), felony battery with serious bodily injury upon Z.R. (§ 243, subds. (d), (f)(4)), misdemeanor receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and felony dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)).
In December 2015, the juvenile court placed minor on six months’ informal probation and reserved determination of victim restitution. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.) In April 2016, the juvenile court held a contested restitution hearing, with the focus on whether minor was obligated to pay for any of Z.R.’s medical bills related to the injuries he suffered as a result of the assault.
Given minor’s contentions on appeal, we need not recount the facts of minor’s offenses other than those related to the February 28, 2015 assault on Z.R.
During the victim restitution hearing, D.C. testified he was hanging out with two of his friends from school, K.M. and minor, on the day of the assault. D.C. was aware that Z.R., who also attended the same school, had been texting K.M.’s girlfriend. At K.M.’s and minor’s request, D.C. texted Z.R. and invited him to the park so K.M. and minor “could beat him up or take his stuff.” When Z.R. arrived, D.C. directed him to an area in the park where, unbeknownst to Z.R., K.M. and minor were hiding behind the bathrooms. When Z.R. saw K.M. and minor, he tried to run away but fell. K.M. and minor both chased Z.R. When K.M. reached Z.R., he got on top of Z.R. and started punching him. When Z.R. tried to sit up, K.M. hit him in the head with Z.R.’s skateboard. While K.M. was hitting Z.R., minor went through Z.R.’s backpack, which Z.R. was still wearing. K.M. and minor took Z.R.’s skateboard and left the park. Twenty minutes later, D.C. met up with K.M. and minor at a nearby cemetery.
As a result of the assault, Z.R. was hospitalized overnight for a broken nose and a severe concussion. He had redness and bruising on his face and right ear, and a large red bump on the back of his head.
The juvenile court ordered $17,892.80, to be paid jointly and severally by minor and co-responsible K.M. In holding minor co-responsible, the juvenile court reasoned minor, along with K.M., had D.C. text Z.R. to get Z.R. to come to the park with the idea that Z.R. would “get jumped.” Minor hid with K.M., waited for D.C. to bring Z.R. closer, and then chased Z.R. when he tried to run. Although K.M. was “the primary aggressor” and was the one who hit and punched Z.R., minor “also participated in [the] assault,” because he went through Z.R.’s backpack while he was still wearing it and while K.M. was punching and hitting Z.R. Accordingly, minor’s actions were more than trivial or remote and were “a substantial factor in causing injury to [Z.R.].” The court also held that Z.R.’s injuries were a natural and probable consequence of minor’s actions because a reasonable person was likely to know that Z.R. would be injured when the plan was to jump him.
Minor appealed in June 2016. Subsequent to minor’s appeal, the court revised the amount of restitution to $19,659.44. Minor filed another notice of appeal as to the revised restitution order in September 2016.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay restitution to Z.R., jointly and severally with K.M. According to minor, there is insufficient evidence that minor’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Z.R.’s injuries. Although minor was present, he argues he was a “passive participant in a feud” between Z.R. and K.M. Minor also contends the restitution award serves no rehabilitative purpose. We disagree.
Victim restitution orders serve to rehabilitate minors, deter future delinquent behavior, and compensate victims for economic loss. (In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1017.) “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 an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) The minor’s conduct need not be the sole cause of the loss, but it must be a “substantial factor.” (See In re A.M. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 668, 673-674.) A juvenile court may impose joint and several liability for a direct victim restitution order when more than one wrongdoer is involved in the offense. (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543, 550.)
Despite minor’s contentions, minor was far from a passive participant in the assault. Minor helped plan the attack and encouraged D.C. to lure Z.R. to the park. Minor hid with K.M. while they were waiting for Z.R., and then, when Z.R. arrived, chased him until he fell. Although minor may not have been the one actually inflicting physical harm on Z.R., he provided substantial support and actively participated in the assault by rifling through the backpack Z.R. was wearing, as agreed beforehand, while K.M. was still hitting and punching Z.R., as well hitting him in the head with the skateboard. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding minor’s unlawful conduct was a substantial factor in Z.R.’s injuries and, further, the juvenile court’s finding supports imposition of joint and several liability for restitution to Z.R. (See In re A.M., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 673-674; see also In re S.S., supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 550 [“restitution order ‘may serve the salutary purpose of making [the minor] understand that he has harmed . . . individual human beings, and that he has a responsibility to make them whole’ ”].)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.



NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.



We concur:



ROBIE , J.




DUARTE , J.