In re L.S. CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 6, 2026 No. G064649Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering $2,200 in restitution, as the court was entitled to credit the victim's grandmother's testimony and documentation regarding lost wages despite conflicting evidence.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by ordering $2,200 in restitution based on allegedly insufficient evidence of lost wages?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that although the evidence could have been viewed in more than one way by the court, its decision to credit the pertinent testimony was not an abuse of discretion.”

“The court was entitled to credit Francisca’s testimony, and while a reasonable trier of fact could have made a different finding, there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to find Francisca’s written documentation and testimony credible.”

Filed 1/6/26 In re L.S. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re L.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G064649 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24DL0401) v. OPINION L.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Isabel Apkarian, Judge. Affirmed. Annie Fraser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A.

Swenson and Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * In this Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 case, defendant L.S. requests this court to reduce the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay from $2,200 to $1,600. She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by setting the higher amount due to a lack of evidence. We conclude that although the evidence could have been viewed in more than one way by the court, its decision to credit the pertinent testimony was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the restitution order. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In May 2024, pursuant to a negotiated agreement, L.S. admitted one count of battery. (Pen. Code, § 242.) The factual basis for the agreement stated she “willfully and unlawfully used force/violence upon the person of Destiny L.” The court declared L.S. to be a nonward and ordered her to complete various terms and conditions of probation, including the payment of restitution. The court also ordered L.S. to complete 10 hours of community service.

A contested restitution hearing was held in September 2024. The court ordered L.S. to pay $2,200 to the victim’s grandmother, Francisca F. (Francisca). L.S. filed a notice of appeal.

In re L.S. CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

DELANEY, J.

GOODING, J.

AI Brief