In re T.A. CA2/6

Filed 6/16/25 In re T.A. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re T.A., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B335305 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Cons. w/ B338571) (Super. Ct. No. SJ0215A) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.A. appeals the juvenile court’s order and judgment requiring her to pay restitution pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 730.6. Appellant contends the court

1 Unmarked statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

erred by adding interest to the restitution amount at an annual rate of 10 percent from the date of loss. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant damaged the door of the victim’s car during an altercation in April of 2023. She was charged with misdemeanor vandalism in a section 602 petition. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).) The juvenile court placed her on informal supervision pursuant to section 654.2 and scheduled a restitution hearing. The victim testified at the restitution hearing that she spent $249.28 to replace her car window. She produced an estimate of $2,042.10 to repair several dents on the outer door shell. The juvenile court found appellant responsible for the damage and ordered her to pay these amounts as “part of the 654 grant.” It told her any amount not paid when she completed informal supervision would be converted to a civil judgment. The court held a progress hearing on April 16, 2024. It found appellant completed the terms of supervision but had not yet paid any restitution. It proposed dismissing the case and entering a civil judgment for the amount owed. Appellant’s counsel responded, “That is our desire as well.” The court entered judgment in the amount of $2,336.38. It ordered appellant to pay annual interest of 10 percent from the date of loss. DISCUSSION Appellant does not challenge the amount of the original restitution award, i.e., $2,336.38. She concedes she is estopped from challenging the award’s conversion into a civil judgment because she expressly consented to the action at hearing. (See In re K.C. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 465, 472-473 [minor may consent to acts in excess of jurisdiction when beneficial to the parties and consistent with public policy].) She contends only that the