California Court of Appeal Aug 22, 2024 No. E083734Unpublished
Filed 8/22/24 In re A.S. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, E083734 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J298789) v. OPINION A.S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Geraldine
Williams, Judge. Affirmed.
Jo Pastore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant A.S. (minor) admitted to misdemeanor resisting a peace
officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2). In return, the remaining allegation of
possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen. Code, § 29610; count 1) was dismissed. Minor
was thereafter declared a ward of the court, placed on formal probation in the custody of
his parents on various terms and conditions of probation, and ordered to pay victim
restitution jointly and severely with his coparticipants. Minor appeals from an order after
judgment. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25
On October 27, 2023, minor admitted to count 2, misdemeanor resisting a peace
officer. In return, count 1 was dismissed with a stipulation that it could be considered for
3
the purpose of disposition and restitution. Pending the dispositional hearing, minor was
released on house arrest in the custody of his parents.
On November 13, 2023, the juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court and
placed him on formal probation in the custody of his parents on various terms and
conditions of probation. The matter was continued for a restitution hearing.
After several continuances, the juvenile court held a restitution hearing on April
22, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated the factual basis, as noted above,
underlying the arguments as to the propriety of a restitution order. The parties also
stipulated that one of the victims was seeking $500 in restitution for damage to her
television caused by a bullet striking it, and the second victim was seeking $800 to repair
four damage holes from bullet strikes and $400 to replace tempered glass caused by a
striking bullet. Following the hearing, the court ordered minor to pay victim restitution in
the amount of $1,700 jointly and severely with his coparticipants. In ordering the
restitution, the court noted that there was a factual nexus between the offense and the
damage inflicted. The court also indicated the restitution order would further the
“reforming and rehabilitation of the minor” by impressing upon minor the gravity of the
harm, to deter future criminality, and to give him the ability to make amends. Minor
timely appealed.
4
III.
DISCUSSION
After minor appealed, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon
examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth
a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues of whether
the juvenile court erred in imposing restitution based on uncharged offenses and whether
an accessory can be liable for restitution.
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has
not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant minor, would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-
442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.
5
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
FIELDS J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, including the restitution order, after finding no arguable errors upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court erred in imposing restitution based on uncharged offenses.
Whether an accessory can be liable for restitution.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.”