In re A.V.-R. CA6

Filed 7/3/25 In re A.V.-R. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.V.-R., a Person Coming Under the H051752 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 23JV46141A)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.V.-R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

After sustaining a wardship petition, the juvenile court placed A.V.-R. at the Santa Clara County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facilities – Enhanced Ranch Program (the Ranch) and ordered her to pay a mandatory restitution fine of $110 under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (b).1 On appeal, A.V.-R. initially challenged both the $110 restitution fine and the Ranch commitment; but having since completed her Ranch commitment, she now concedes that aspect of her claim is moot. The Attorney General concedes that the $110 restitution fine should be stricken. We accept both concessions and will strike the restitution fine.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

I. BACKGROUND The Santa Clara County District Attorney petitioned the juvenile court to make A.V.-R. a ward of the court, alleging that A.V.-R. had violated Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon. After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition. At the January 2024 disposition hearing, the juvenile court denied A.V.-R.’s request to be released on community-based supervision and instead ordered A.V.-R. to be placed at the Ranch for six to eight months. Ordering that A.V.-R. pay victim restitution in an amount later to be determined, the court also imposed a $110 restitution fine. A.V.-R. timely appealed. A.V.-R. completed her Ranch commitment and aftercare program before her counsel filed her opening brief, and probation was dismissed later in January 2025.2 II. DISCUSSION A. The Ranch Commitment In her opening brief, A.V.-R. argued that “substantial evidence d[id] not support the [juvenile] court’s finding that public safety required A.V.-R. be confined at the Ranch for six to eight months.” In her reply brief, however, she agrees that her completion of the Ranch commitment made her argument moot. We agree. Our task is “ ‘ “to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276; see also Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc.