In re Michael F.

Filed 8/21/07 In re Michael F. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In 2003 the juvenile court committed appellant Michael F. to the California Youth Authority (CYA)^[1]following his plea of no contest to a fourth supplemental petition alleging that he committed two counts of residential burglary.^[2] The court ordered appellant to pay $44,759 in victim restitution.

In 2006 appellant successfully completed parole and wardship was terminated. Thereafter the Perrys moved (1) to amend the restitution order to include parental liability and (2) for an income deduction order. In their moving papers the Perrys requested the court to issue the amended order as an order for restitution and abstract of judgment. Following a hearing, the court reissued the restitution order as an order for restitution and abstract of judgment pursuant to section 730.6 and Penal Code section 1214. As well, appellants parents were listed as jointly and severally liable. This appeal followed.

Discussion

Pursuant to section 607, which generally limits the juvenile court jurisdiction over a ward to the wards 21st birthday, appellant aged out at the age of 21 on August 9, 2006, at which time he was discharged from parole. He maintains that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter the above restitution order and abstract of judgment because parole supervision and wardship had already terminated. We disagree.

In February 2003, pursuant to section 730.6, the juvenile court imposed the victim restitution fine. Appellant did not challenge that order and it is final for purposes of this appeal.

Section 730.6, subdivision (r) provides that a judgment for a victim restitution fine ordered in a section 602 proceeding may be enforced in the manner provided in Section 1214 of the Penal Code. Penal Code section 1214, subdivision (b) in turn provides: In any case in which a defendant is ordered to pay restitution, the order to pay restitution (1) is deemed a money judgment if the defendant was informed of his or her right to have a judicial determination of the amount and was provided with a hearing, waived a hearing, or stipulated to the amount of the restitution ordered, and (2) shall be fully enforceable by a victim as if the restitution order were a civil judgment, and enforceable in the same manner as is provided for the enforcement of any other money judgment. . . . Any portion of a restitution order that remains unsatisfied after a defendant is no longer on probation is enforceable by the victim pursuant to this section. (Pen. Code,  1214, subd. (b).)

Here, after a noticed hearing, the juvenile court reissued the restitution order and abstract of judgment in standard form approved by the Judicial Council of California. The appropriate legal authority was cited, which authorizes and directs the result that was obtained. The court did not extend jurisdiction in the wardship proceeding, nor did it modify any term of probation or parole or alter the disposition.

Appellant argues nonetheless that although Penal Code section 1214 authorizes any outstanding portion of restitution to be converted into a civil judgment when probation ends, appellant was not properly noticed with a Penal Code section 1214 hearing. Rather, he contends the noticed hearing was with respect to adding parental liability, and had nothing to do with his own status. But that is not the case. The noticed motion was to amend the current restitution order to include parental liability and issue an income deduction order.^[3] Clearly, an amendment of a current order, and the possibility of a wage garnishment-type order, affects appellants own status. Moreover, the moving papers requested that the amended order be reissued as an order and abstract of judgment to facilitate collection as a civil judgment, citing Penal Code section 1214.

Further, as the court indicated: [L]ooking back at the minute order onlooks like February 27th, 2003for Michael [F.], and the minor was present and the mother was present. And the orderthere also was restitution in the amount of $44,759. [] That amount remains a restitution order . . . . [] Theres nothing new to be done. That order will remain in effect. It does not extinguish with the fact that they may have successfully completed other parts of their probation. That restitution order does remain in effect. [] And, you know, its no sense waiting out until you get to be an adult and then hope you dont owe anybody anything anymore for what you did. Thats simply not what the [L]egislature intended. They intended that the restitution should be paid, and it will follow you for the rest of your life until it is paid. . . .

Appellant has provided nothing to show that the original restitution order was not pursuant to a hearing in which he was informed of his right to have the amount judicially determined, or that he did not otherwise waive such a hearing or stipulate to the amount of restitution ordered. (Pen. Code,  1214, subd. (b).) That being the case, the restitution order has always been deemed a money judgment. (Ibid.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Reardon, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Ruvolo, P. J.

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

^[1] As of July 2005, what was formerly known as CYA became the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice. (Welf. & Inst. Code,  1710, subd. (a); Gov. Code,  12838, 12838.5.)

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

^[2] Appellant and three others burglarized and ransacked the home of Barbara and Mark Perry.

^[3] This request was not granted.