In re Nathaniel M.
Filed 9/19/07 In re Nathaniel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 NATHANIEL M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHANIEL M., Defendant and Appellant. | C051955 (Super. Ct. No. JD03494) |
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, Nathaniel M., a minor, was found to have committed battery with serious bodily injury on his grandfather. The minor was declared a ward of the court and ordered to pay restitution in an amount to be determined. On January 26, 2006, after a contested restitution hearing, the court ordered the minor to pay restitution of $33,452.35, the amount of the grandfathers medical expenses.
On appeal, the minor contends the court abused its discretion when it failed to find, as was within its power, compelling and extraordinary reasons that the minor should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution. We reject the contention.
DISCUSSION
Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (a)(1)[1]provides in relevant part: 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 minors conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor.
Section 730.6, subdivision (h) states in pertinent part: Restitution . . . shall be imposed in the amount of the losses, as determined. . . . The court shall order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states them on the record. A minors inability to pay shall not be . . . a consideration in determining the amount of the restitution order.
The minor does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the amount of the restitution order. Instead, he argues that because of his age (16), his mental health problems, his having recently been homeless, his never having held a job, and the immensity of the amount of restitution, he has virtually no chance of paying any significant portion of the award. Therefore, he concludes, ordering such a large amount does not contribute to his rehabilitation, but simply burdens the father, a single parent who is providing for his own elderly parents as well as his son and will be jointly and severally liable for the restitution. We disagree.
On January 26, 2006, the date the restitution hearing was conducted, the minor was 16 years old, was approximately six feet tall and weighed about 190 lbs. He had a history of assaultive and potentially violent conduct--at age 11, he took a .357 magnum to school; he was declared a ward of the court when he attempted to stab his father with a kitchen knife; while in juvenile hall awaiting placement, he committed, and subsequently admitted, battery on a staff member; and in the present matter, he battered his grandfather, inflicting over $32,000 in injuries.
As the court made clear at the time it imposed the order of restitution, the consequences of the taxpayers should be borne by the person who caused the injury . . . . In other words, it was time the minor was held economically accountable for his actions, and having such a relatively large amount of debt hanging over him could well be a reminder if and when he decides to again assault someone.
As to the minors father being burdened by being severally and jointly liable for the restitution, the courts order excluded him from such liability. After listening to an impassioned plea by the father explaining why, as a single father supporting the minor and the fathers parents, he could not pay such a large amount, the court responded: Its not my intention to make the fathers life more difficult, but I believe that the consequences of the taxpayers should be borne by the person who caused the injury, which is your son. And Im not making an order beyond that amount. However, even if the courts order causes the minors father to be jointly and severally liable for the restitution ( 730.7, subd. (a)), given the courts stated intent and purpose for ordering full restitution, we do not find error.
Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion by the court not finding extraordinary and compelling reasons not to impose full restitution.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
MORRISON , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
[1] Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
