In re A.M. CA4/3

Filed 7/26/24 In re A.M. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G063128 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23DL0217) v. OPINION A.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Anthony C. Ufland, Judge. Affirmed. Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Monique Myers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * A.M., a minor, appeals from a restitution order. On March 23, 2023, A.M. admitted to committing assault and battery against J.R. in violation of Penal Code sections 240 and 242. Following a restitution hearing, the juvenile court ordered, among other things, A.M. to pay restitution to J.R. in the amount of $4,681.66. The restitution amount included costs incurred by J.R. for missed work, wasted food, medical expenses, and acupuncture treatments. On appeal, A.M. argues that the court abused its discretion in finding that J.R.’s acupuncture treatments were the result of A.M.’s conduct. A.M. also argues that the lack of advance notice of J.R.’s acupuncture treatments violated her due process rights. Lastly, A.M. argues that the court’s reimbursement of medical expenses constitutes an impermissible windfall for J.R. As explained below, J.R. is entitled to the full costs of her reasonably calculated actual losses. The court correctly based its findings on substantial evidence, and A.M. had an adequate opportunity to dispute the evidence presented by the prosecution. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the court’s order.