In re Steven T.
Filed 9/19/07 In re Steven T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 STEVEN T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN T., Defendant and Appellant. | E041852 (Super.Ct.No. J210379) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Margaret A. Powers, Judge. Affirmed.
Gregory Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Minor admitted vandalizing property valued over $400. (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(1).)[1] The court declared minor a ward of the court and granted him probation. Minor contends (1) the court abused its discretion by requiring him to attend drug and alcohol classes as a condition of his probation; and (2) the court erred by requiring minor to pay an administrative fee. We affirm.
FACTS
The parties agreed the police report would form the factual basis of the admission. On July 28, 2006, deputies arrived at a residence after receiving information that two individuals were attempting to burglarize a vacant house. Witnesses informed the deputies that two people entered several houses without permission and vandalized them. The deputies later discovered minor and his friend hiding behind a house.
When interviewed by the deputies, minor stated that he and his friend were playing inside a house when they accidentally broke a window. However, when interviewed at juvenile hall, minor stated that he and his friend intentionally broke the window of a house, in order to get water. Minor claimed that he leaned on the window, causing it to crack, and that his friend threw a rock at the window.
In court, minor admitted vandalizing one house, but was required to pay restitution to two victims.
DISCUSSION
A. Probation Condition
Minor contends that probation condition No. 28, requiring him to [a]ttend a drug/alcohol program as directed by the probation officer, is invalid because (1) there is no nexus between vandalism and drug and alcohol abuse; and (2) there is no evidence that minor would be susceptible to abusing drugs or alcohol in the future. We affirm.
A probation condition is valid unless it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. [Citations.] (In re Christopher M. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 684, 692.) In addition, a juvenile court may require any and all reasonable probation conditions that it deems necessary to enhance a minors reformation and rehabilitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 730, subd. (b).)
A program designed to educate minor about the dangers of substance abuse will reasonably enhance minors reformation and rehabilitation by providing him with techniques for avoiding future crimes related to drugs and alcohol. Consequently, because the probation condition is concerned with deterring minor from future crimes, we conclude that it is reasonably related to future criminality; therefore, we find no abuse of discretion.
B. Administrative Fee
Minor contends the court erred by requiring him to pay a 10 percent administrative fee pursuant to section 1203.1 because the section does not provide for administrative fees. Minor is mistaken.
Section 1203.1, subdivision (l), expressly states that [i]f the court orders restitution to be made to the victim, the board of supervisors may add a fee to cover the actual administrative cost of collecting restitution but not to exceed 10 percent of the total amount ordered to be paid.
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors has authorized a 10 percent administrative fee to be paid by defendants for collecting restitution. (San Bernardino County Code, 16.0230, subd. (m).)
In minors case, the court ordered minor to pay restitution to the first victim in the amount of $401 and to the second victim in the amount of $350. Accordingly, it was proper to require minor to pay the 10 percent administrative fee to cover the costs of collecting minors restitution payments.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
