1
Filed 4/26/17 In re J.M. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
E067038
(Super.Ct.No. J263777)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Pamela P. King,
Judge. Affirmed.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2016, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a petition to
declare defendant and appellant J.M. (minor) a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§602, subd. (a).) The petition alleged that minor violated (1) Penal Code section 459
(residential burglary), a felony (count 1); and (2) Vehicle Code section 10851,
subdivision (a) (unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle), a felony (count 2).
On May 4, 2016, minor admitted the allegations in count 2, and the parties
stipulated that the police report formed the basis of minor’s plea. The court found the
allegations as to count 2 true, and dismissed the allegations in count 1.
On May 17, 2016, probation submitted a report, which included victim restitution
claims. On that date, the juvenile court ordered minor to continue as a ward of the court,
to serve 30 days in juvenile hall with credit for 17 days, and to obey various other terms
and conditions of probation. Minor’s counsel contested the amount of restitution, and the
court continued the matter for a restitution hearing.
On June 21, and August 11, 2016, a contested restitution hearing was held.
Minor’s counsel argued that the juvenile court was not authorized to order restitution for
the security system installed after the commission of the crime when the crime was not a
violent felony under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c)(21). According to the
statute, burglaries only qualify as “violent felonies” when a resident is home at the time
of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) Here, no one was home at the time of
the burglary.
3
The juvenile court cited Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3) for the
proposition that “restitution shall be sufficient to fully reimburse the victim for economic
loss incurred as a result of the actionable conduct.” The court then referenced section
1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(J), which specifically identifies expenses to install a residential
security system in the aftermath of “a violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of
section 667.5.”
Although the juvenile court recognized the residential burglary in this case did not
fall within the statutory definition of a violent felony, it decided that “the repeated
statutory language of ‘including, but not limited to’” mandates restitution for the cost of
installing the security system. The court stated: “I don’t think that’s what the—the
statute doesn’t say that. It says that in that instance, yes, that is an example of when you
definitely should have restitution for a security system. But it very specifically—it says,
‘including but not limited to that situation.’ And the prior, more general that this is a
subsection of says, ‘ . . . included but not limited to . . .’ So these are examples of when it
would be appropriate. So you would not even challenge this expense as being the subject
of a restitution order in this kind of a situation of 667.5. But when it doesn’t fall into
667.5, then the Court has to exercise discretion and apply the general rules of when
restitution should be granted—or when the restitution order should encompass the
particular expense incurred.”
4
On September 1, 2016, the juvenile court found that the victims were entitled to
restitution for the security system installed after their home was burglarized, but they
were not entitled to reimbursement for the monthly monitoring of the system.
Subsequently, the parties agreed and the court ordered that that minor owed
$38,205.08 in restitution, including $208.99 and $817.99 for the security system. On
October 12, 2016, minor filed a timely notice of appeal of the restitution order.
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
Minor admitted the allegations in count 2—that on April 30, 2016, he unlawfully
took or drove a 2015 Hyundai that belonged to the victim.
DISCUSSION
After minor appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has
not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.

1
Minor admitted count 2 of the petition and the court found a factual basis for the
plea.
5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
McKINSTER
J.