In re J.A. CA1/2

Filed 2/20/26 In re J.A. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re J.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172292 v. J.A., (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. JW23-6036) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 On July 10, 2023, J.A. admitted allegations in two juvenile wardship petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602),2 based on two separate incidents involving a co-offender, that she committed assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury on a public transit passenger (id., § 245.2), and organized retail theft with the intent to sell (id., § 490.4, subd. (a)(1)).

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, reciting only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised. (See Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2022) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

At the disposition hearing on January 31, 2024, the juvenile court declared J.A. a ward and placed her on probation. As conditions of probation, the court ordered J.A. to pay a $300 restitution fine, which it suspended due to J.A.’s inability to pay, and direct victim restitution in an amount to be determined at a hearing. Following such a hearing, in an order filed on July 8, the court directed J.A. and her co-participant to pay, jointly and severally, direct victim restitution in the amount of $39,451.18. On December 27, the court formally entered the victim restitution order. This appeal followed. In her opening brief, J.A. first challenged the victim restitution order based on a legislative amendment that took effect while this appeal was pending. When the court entered its victim restitution order, it was permitted to order joint and several liability for victim restitution among co- offenders. (See former § 730.6, subd. (h)(2), as amended by Stats. 2015, ch. 131, § 1; In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 543, 550–551.) Effective January 1, 2025, however, minors may not be held jointly and severally liable for victim restitution. Assembly Bill No. 1186 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1186) added paragraph (3) to section 730.6, subdivision (b) (section 730.6(b)(3)), which now provides: “For the purposes of victim restitution, each minor shall be held severally liable, and shall not be held jointly and severally liable as co-offenders. The court shall apportion liability based on each minor’s percentage of responsibility or fault for all economic losses included in the order of restitution. The aggregate amount of apportioned liability for all minors involved shall not exceed 100 percent in total.” (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, § 6.) In her opening brief, J.A. argued that section 730.6(b)(3) applies retroactively and requires a remand for a new restitution hearing to allow the court to apportion restitution liability among her and her co-offender based