In re Joshua C. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J232910
- Trial judge
- Richard R. Monroy
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Joan K. Irion (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke
Analysis
The juvenile court affirmed a dispositional order committing the minor to a residential treatment facility and ordering restitution that included insurance-covered repair costs. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende found no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order requiring restitution to include auto repair costs covered by the victim's insurance policy“Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivisions (a)(2)(B) and (h) provide that the victim of a minor's offense shall receive restitution in the amount of his or her losses, which includes expenses covered by insurance.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Dispositional order committing the minor to a residential treatment facility“A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and invites the court to independently review the record for error when no argument is presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying potential issues and inviting the court to review the record.
- relied: In re Eric S. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1560 — Restitution under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 includes expenses covered by insurance.
- relied: In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010 — Restitution under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 includes expenses covered by insurance.
- relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Allows for the waiver of certain procedural rights in juvenile proceedings, specifically regarding the dismissal of counts.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for independent review when appointed counsel presents no argument. The court correctly identifies the statutory basis for including insurance-covered costs in restitution, citing relevant case law.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court accepted Joshua C.'s admissions to possessing a knife on school grounds and to arson of another's property, dismissed the remaining counts with Harvey waivers, ordered $2,682.24 in victim restitution (including repair costs covered by the victim's auto insurance), and committed him to a residential treatment facility. On a Wende/Anders appeal in which counsel raised no arguable issues and the minor filed no supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, specifically approved inclusion of insurance-covered losses in the restitution order, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Victim restitution order of $2,682.24 including auto repair costs covered by the victim's insurance“The juvenile court properly included that amount in the restitution order.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 requires full reimbursement of the victim's economic losses, and the cited cases (In re Eric S.; In re Anthony M.) hold that a minor's restitution obligation is not reduced by amounts the victim recovered from his or her own insurer. The court also corrected a calculation error in the minor's favor. The opinion's reasoning and authorities support the conclusion. |
Dispositional order committing the minor to a residential treatment facility“whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in rendering judgment” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Counsel identified the disposition as a possible but not arguable issue; the appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable error. Given admissions to two offenses in successive petitions, including arson at school, a residential treatment commitment is within the juvenile court's broad dispositional discretion. Nothing in the opinion suggests error, but the record is summarized only briefly. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the reviewing court must independently examine the entire record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then reviews the record.
- relied: In re Eric S. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1560 — Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, a minor's victim restitution obligation is not reduced by payments the victim received from his or her own insurer.
- relied: In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010 — Victim restitution in juvenile delinquency cases must fully reimburse the victim's economic losses; insurance coverage does not offset the minor's obligation.
- relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Facts underlying dismissed counts may be considered at sentencing or disposition only if the defendant so agrees (a Harvey waiver), which Joshua gave here as to the dismissed counts, supporting restitution for the dismissed vandalism count.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure, independently reviews the record, and correctly resolves the one issue actually litigated below—inclusion of insurance-covered losses in restitution—with on-point statutory and case authority. It is brief and does not elaborate on the residential commitment, but a Wende affirmance need not do so where no arguable issue appears.
Opinion
Filed 1/30/14 In re Joshua C. CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re JOSHUA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D063986 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J232910)
v. JOSHUA C., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R.
Monroy, Judge. Affirmed.
Cynthia A. Grimm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Joshua C. appeals from a dispositional order in proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Joshua C. did not respond to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
An amended juvenile delinquency petition filed in March 2013 alleged that Joshua unlawfully possessed a knife on school grounds (Pen. Code § 626.10, subd. (a)(1)1 [count 1], and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A) [count 2]. The count involving the knife was based on Joshua's possession of a knife in his pockets at school.
The vandalism involved damage to another student's car. Joshua admitted count 1, and count 2 was dismissed with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754).
The court ordered Joshua to pay $2,932.24 in restitution to the victim of the vandalism.
The restitution order was later reduced to $2,682.24 to correct an error in calculating the amount of monetary harm to the victim.
A second juvenile delinquency petition filed in May 2013 under the same case number alleged that Joshua (1) committed assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd.
(a)(1)); (2) maliciously and unlawfully set fire to the property of another (§ 451, subd.
(d)); (3) unlawfully used force upon another on school property (§ 243.2, subd. (a)(1));
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 and (4) unlawfully possessed smoking paraphernalia (§ 308, subd. (b)). Joshua admitted to maliciously and unlawfully setting fire to the property of another (§ 451, subd. (d)), which was based on Joshua's use of a lighter to burn a hole in another student's clothing.
The other counts were dismissed with a Harvey waiver. The juvenile court committed Joshua to a residential treatment facility.
Joshua filed a notice of appeal.
II
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the juvenile court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in setting the amount of victim restitution; and (2) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in rendering judgment. After we received counsel's brief, we gave Joshua an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. We note that counsel for Joshua questioned in the juvenile court whether the restitution order should include the amount of the auto repair costs covered by the victim's auto insurance policy. The juvenile court properly included that amount in the restitution order. Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, 3 subdivisions (a)(2)(B) and (h) provide that the victim of a minor's offense shall receive restitution in the amount of his or her losses, which includes expenses covered by insurance. (In re Eric S. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1560, 1566; In re Anthony M. (2007)
156 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1018-1019 & fn. 5.) Joshua has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P.J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Eric S. A125758 · 2010-04-23
- People v. Anthony M. C053576 · 2007-11-07
- People v. Harvey Crim 21022 · 1979-11-27
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12