In re M.W. CA3

Filed 8/26/13 In re M.W. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

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

THE PEOPLE, C071349

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 68026)

v.

M.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor M.W. appeals from the juvenile court‟s order to pay $2,528 in victim restitution. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6 (§ 730.6).) Minor claims he was denied due process at the restitution hearing because the juvenile court relied solely on inadmissible hearsay evidence to find he caused the damage for which he was ordered to pay restitution. We conclude the evidence was admissible and thus minor was not denied due process. We affirm the order of the juvenile court.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2010, minor was adjudged a ward, placed on probation, and released to his parents. On July 28, 2011, a violation of probation petition (VOP) was filed alleging the minor impersonated a police officer on May 26, 2011, and vandalized a golf course on August 12, 2011. Minor denied these allegations. On August 15, 2011, the People filed a new delinquency petition alleging minor impersonated an officer (Pen. Code, § 146a, subd. (b)). Appellant admitted this charge, and the VOP was dismissed on the People‟s motion. Minor was continued as a ward and reinstated on probation with additional conditions. The juvenile court later held a restitution hearing to determine whether minor damaged the golf course and the amount of such damages. Over a hearsay objection, the People introduced a police report to show that minor drove “donuts” on the golf course, damaging it. The report included statements from witnesses that minor drank alcohol that night, then drove a vehicle on the golf course, causing the damage, and the minor‟s admission to having done so. At the restitution hearing, minor denied admitting damaging the golf course, and denied drinking that night. His father testified and corroborated that the minor had not made admissions to the police. The juvenile court ordered minor to pay $2,528 restitution to the owners of the golf course. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Minor‟s sole contention is that the juvenile court wrongly considered the police report at the restitution hearing. Minor argues that this admission rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair, in denial of his right to due process. Minor acknowledges we have twice ruled that hearsay evidence is admissible at the dispositional phase of a juvenile delinquency case (In re Vincent G. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 238, 244 (Vincent G.); In re T.C. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 837, 848