In re Kashif H.
Filed 7/10/06 In re Kashif H. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re KASHIF H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, H029585
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Clara County
Superior Court
v. No. JV22808)
KASHIF H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
_____________________________________/
On July 21, 2005, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant Kashif H., a minor, committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459-460, subd. (a)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition. Appellant was adjudged a ward of the court, admitted to probation for six years, and returned to the custody of his parents. He also was ordered to serve 60 days on the Electronic Monitoring Program, to perform 60 hours of community service, and to pay various fines and fees. On appeal, appellant contends that the order to pay a general fund fine of $125 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.5 must be vacated for lack of sufficient evidence that appellant has the financial ability to pay the fine. We agree.
I. Factual Background
On the evening of November 30, 2004, Tor Pang returned to his house to find coins, credit cards and a Play Station II missing. A window had been left open that morning and its screen was bent. The sliding door to the patio had been closed with a stick, but was found partially open with the stick removed. At about noon that day, Pang's neighbor saw appellant and another male enter Pang's backyard. They emerged about 30 minutes later carrying a blue bag that was not previously in their possession. The neighbor recognized appellant because he had been a friend of appellant's brother, and he subsequently identified appellant in a photo.
II. Discussion
As one of the terms of probation, the juvenile court ordered appellant to pay a general fund fine of $125. The court did not specify the statutory basis for the fine, but appellant contends, and the People do not dispute, that the fine was ordered pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.5.[1] This is consistent with the record.
Section 730.5 provides: â€
