In re Rocky K.

Filed 10/16/06 In re Rocky K. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Dozens of youth vandalized the home of a couple who were out of town. Rocky K. admitted participating in the party and taking two items worth about $50. The juvenile court found Rocky K. jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the victims’ $19,000 after-insurance losses. We conclude the court acted within its discretion in doing so and affirm.

Background

In a petition filed in June 2005 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, it was alleged that Rocky K. (born in June 1988) committed felony receipt of stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496;[1] count 1) and felony grand theft (§§ 487, subd. (a), 664; count 2) on February 26, 2005; and misdemeanor possession of a burglary tool, a parking meter key (§ 466; count 3), and misdemeanor petty theft (§§ 484, subd. (a), 664; count 4) on April 12, 2005. At the jurisdictional hearing, Rocky K. admitted misdemeanor receipt of stolen property in the February incident (count one) and the other charges were dismissed “with facts and restitution open.” The court placed Rocky K. on home supervision and scheduled a hearing on victim restitution.

At the restitution hearing, Rocky K. testified that he attended a party at an Alameda home in February 2005. About 50 people were in the house when he first arrived. He knew the owners were not present. He stayed for a couple of hours and took two items with him when he left, a 50-milliliter bottle of Jack Daniels and a container of acne cream. When he was first questioned by police officers about the incident, he denied taking the acne cream. At the restitution hearing, he admitted lying to the police. He denied doing any physical damage to the property, denied going through the house looking for things to steal, denied seeing the house in disarray, and denied seeing people take things from the house. The juvenile court found Rocky K. not credible.

The victims submitted a claim for $65,612.38 in losses, which included damage to the house, their vehicle, and personal property as well as theft of personal property. The probation officer recommended that Rocky K. be ordered to pay $19,640.90 in restitution, the amount of the victims’ loss not covered by insurance payments, sharing joint and several liability with coparticipants found to have committed burglary, vandalism or receipt of stolen property. The prosecutor offered to settle the matter for $7,815.35, but Rocky K. rejected the offer. The court ordered him to pay $19,640.90 in restitution, sharing joint and several liability with coparticipants.

Discussion

“[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 minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (a)(1); see also Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (a)(2)(B).) We review a juvenile court’s imposition of a restitution order for abuse of discretion. (In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132.) A victim’s right to restitution is to be broadly and liberally construed. (Ibid.) No abuse of discretion will be found if there is a factual and rational basis to a restitution order. (Ibid.)

Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730, subdivision (b) the juvenile court has broad discretion to impose terms and conditions of probation to achieve justice and enhance the reformation and rehabilitation of the juvenile. When a court imposes restitution as a condition of probation in an adult case, it acts within its discretion if the restitution order is reasonably related to the crime the defendant was found to have committed or to the risk of future criminality. (See People v. Baumann (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 67, 77.) Restitution is not limited to the direct consequences of the criminal acts of which the defendant is actually convicted. (See id. at p. 76.) A court’s discretion to impose conditions of probation in a juvenile case is even greater. (In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68, 81.) Restitution is not limited to losses directly caused by the minor; it may include losses caused by conduct the minor partially participated in or conduct the minor aided and abetted. (In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543, 550; see also People v. Arnold (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1097-1098, 1100.) A minor may be held jointly and severally liable with coparticipants for the victims’ entire loss caused by an offense. (In re S.S., at p. 550.)

The juvenile court acted well within its discretion in ordering Rocky K. to pay the victims’ full after-insurance losses, sharing joint and several liability with the other participants in the incident.

Contrary to Rocky K.’s contention, the court was not limited to considering only evidence that was presented at the restitution hearing. A restitution hearing does not require the formalities of a criminal prosecution. (In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1392.) In making restitution orders, “judges have virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider and the source [of that information].” (Ibid.) The court could properly consider the police reports in the record with respect to the scope of Rocky K.’s responsibility for the victims’ losses.

Police reports in the juvenile court record state that Rocky K. admitted accepting a ride to the party in a van he knew was stolen; drinking beer and smoking marijuana in the house; searching the house because “ ‘there would be money and/or valuables hidden in the residence’ “; and trying to open a safe. A coparticipant reported that Rocky K. went through everything in the house and tried to start a motorcycle in the garage. Evidence before the juvenile court showed that Rocky K. actively participated in a course of conduct that caused the victims’ losses. Rocky K. admitted at the restitution hearing that he stole two items from the home.

The losses included alcohol damage to floor coverings, and bottles and cigarettes strewn throughout the vandalized house. The damage to the stolen van in which Rocky K. rode was part of the victims’ losses. Nevertheless, at the restitution hearing, Rocky K. denied witnessing or participating in any damage to the home. The court found his self-serving testimony not credible.

The court could reasonably conclude based on the evidence that Rocky K. participated in the personal property theft, personal property damage, and house damage that gave rise to the victims’ losses. The court could reasonably conclude that the victim restitution order was an appropriate means of rehabilitation. The court found that Rocky K. was less than candid on the witness stand in an attempt to minimize his responsibility for those losses. A “proper restitution order ‘may serve the salutary purpose of making [the juvenile] understand that he has harmed . . . individual human beings, and that he has a responsibility to make them whole.’ [Citation.]” (In re S.S., supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 550.) We conclude that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in making the victim restitution order.

Disposition

The restitution order is affirmed.

GEMELLO, J.

We concur.

JONES, P.J.

SIMONS, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.