In re K.F. CA3

Filed 11/4/24 In re K.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

In re K.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C099972 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. 52009448)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court found K.F. committed arson following a contested jurisdictional hearing. Thereafter, the juvenile court held a contested restitution hearing at which K.F. was present and represented by his appointed counsel. At the conclusion of the restitution hearing, the juvenile court took the matter under submission and set a hearing three days later to issue its final ruling. K.F. failed to appear at the hearing at which the court announced its ruling and entered a restitution order in K.F.’s absence.

1

On appeal, K.F. argues the juvenile court erred in ordering restitution without him present. We affirm. BACKGROUND The People filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging K.F. committed arson. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d).)1 After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the relevant facts as follows: “[A]t some time during the late evening of June 27, 2020, a fire of unknown origin ignited within the confines of a large automobile parts salvage yard . . . . [A]n investigator employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection . . . ruled the blaze’s cause to be of a suspicious nature. According to the owner’s estimate, the fire resulted in total losses totaling approximately $125,000.00. “Approximately one year later, on May 7, 2021, . . . [K.F.] admitted that he had set fire to the . . . salvage yard on June 27, 2020, at the urging and behest of [another person] . . . .” The juvenile court found the allegation of arson in the petition to be true. A contested restitution hearing was held on September 26, 2023. K.F. was present at the restitution hearing with counsel, during which the juvenile court received testimony and evidence concerning the losses suffered by the victim due to the fire. As part of the evidentiary basis for the contested restitution amount, the juvenile court received a transcript of a video where the victim had previously walked through the yard with K.F. pointing out the damaged and destroyed items. The victim also testified at the hearing as to the items destroyed. The juvenile court allowed K.F.’s attorney to cross-examine the victim.