In re P.V. CA2/6

Filed 1/21/26 In re P.V. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 P.V., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B337624 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. 2021020959) Law. (Ventura County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

P.V. and another minor set fire to an elementary school. After a contested restitution hearing, the minors were ordered to pay, jointly and severally, direct victim restitution of over $1 million dollars. Appellant contends newly enacted Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (b)(3), which limits a minor’s liability for restitution to their apportioned percentage of

fault, applies retroactively and requires remand for a new restitution hearing.1 We disagree and affirm. Factual and Procedural Background In July 2021, appellant and E.S. recorded themselves engaging in a series of destructive acts after they broke into an elementary school, vandalized a classroom, and started a fire. The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office filed a section 602 petition alleging appellant committed arson, burglary, and vandalism. After a contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition, declared P.V. a ward of the court, and placed her on probation. In April 2024, after a contested restitution hearing, the juvenile court ordered appellant to pay $1,025,000 directly to the Ventura Unified School District, jointly and severally, with her co-offender, E.S. Discussion Appellant contends this court should remand for a new restitution hearing based on newly amended section 730.6, subdivision (b)(3). Specifically, she contends Assembly Bill No. 1186 is an “ameliorative change” and pursuant to In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada), “this provision will apply retroactively to all cases not yet final on its operative date,” like the present case. As we shall explain, appellant is mistaken. Section 730.6, subdivision (a)(1) provides: “It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive