legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Mario M.

In re Mario M.
11:29:2008



In re Mario M.



Filed 11/13/08 In re Mario M. CA4/1















NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.





COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT





DIVISION ONE





STATE OF CALIFORNIA









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



THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



MARIO M.,



Defendant and Appellant.



D052692



(Super. Ct. No. JCM199247)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Desiree A. Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.



In 2004 Mario M. entered a negotiated admission to committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code,  288, subd. (a)). The juvenile court continued Mario as a ward and placed him on probation under home supervision. Mario violated probation several times. In 2005 the court committed him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and ordered he pay $3,278 to the Victim Compensation Program (VCP). In October 2007 the DJJ requested that the court order Mario to pay an additional $9,409.68 to the VCP. The court granted the request at an ex parte proceeding in November. Mario appeals, contending the 2007 order must be vacated and the case remanded for a new restitution hearing because he was not present and was not given notice or an opportunity to test the validity of the new restitution claim. The People properly concede the point. (Welf. & Inst. Code,  730.6, subd. (h).)



DISPOSITION



The 2007 restitution order is reversed. The case is remanded for notice and a new restitution hearing consistent with this opinion. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.





O'ROURKE, J.



WE CONCUR:





NARES, Acting P. J.





HALLER, J.



Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.



Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.



San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com





Description In 2004 Mario M. entered a negotiated admission to committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)). The juvenile court continued Mario as a ward and placed him on probation under home supervision. Mario violated probation several times. In 2005 the court committed him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and ordered he pay $3,278 to the Victim Compensation Program (VCP). In October 2007 the DJJ requested that the court order Mario to pay an additional $9,409.68 to the VCP. The court granted the request at an ex parte proceeding in November. Mario appeals, contending the 2007 order must be vacated and the case remanded for a new restitution hearing because he was not present and was not given notice or an opportunity to test the validity of the new restitution claim. The People properly concede the point. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 730.6, subd. (h).) The judgment is affirmed.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale