In re D.A. CA3

Filed 9/27/13 In re D.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, C071532

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 68386)

v.

D.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor D.A., age 16, admitted an allegation that he had committed first degree burglary. In exchange, a related allegation was dismissed along with an unrelated petition that alleged a different burglary and related offenses that involved different victims. The dismissal was entered with the understanding that, if the minor “caused injury or damages to anyone, [he] will be required to pay them back and that is called restitution.” At a restitution hearing, the victims of the dismissed offenses proved losses totaling $17,772.93. The minor was ordered to make restitution in that amount.

1

On appeal, the minor contends the restitution order must be reversed because the juvenile court failed to obtain a Harvey waiver for the dismissed petition.1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On March 30, 2011, M.C. and M.M. lived on Terra Nova Court. A garage door was forced open and the residence was ransacked. Electronics, jewelry, shoes, and currency were missing. The victims estimated their loss at $8,030. The minor‟s fingerprints were found at the scene. The victims did not seek restitution. On May 25, 2011, E.A. and R.A. lived in a house on Kagehiro Drive. In a burglary, a television was taken and a television stand was broken. Jewelry, clothing, electronics, furniture, sporting equipment, and other items were taken from the residence. The victims‟ total loss was $17,772.93. On September 8, 2011, a petition was filed alleging that the minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a))3 and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) during the March 30, 2011, incident. On September 22, 2011, a subsequent petition was filed alleging that the minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) during the May 25, 2011, incident. On October 7, 2011, the minor negotiated a resolution of both petitions. He admitted the March 30, 2011, burglary and two prior burglary adjudications from