In re Jennifer M. CA6

Filed 12/2/13 In re Jennifer M. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JENNIFER M., a Person Coming H039009 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. J38990)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JENNIFER M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court declared appellant Jennifer M. a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed her on probation after she admitted that she had 1 committed grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (a)), possessed brass knuckles (§ 21810), and committed battery at a school (§§ 242, 243.2, subd. (a)(1)). At a contested restitution hearing, the only witness was the owner of the stolen property. The court ordered Jennifer to pay $2,141.34 in restitution for the value of the stolen property, which included $1,800 for the value of stolen gold rings. On appeal, Jennifer claims that the

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

court’s restitution order is not supported by substantial evidence that the stolen rings were worth $1,800. She also claims that her trial counsel was prejudicially deficient in failing to object on hearsay grounds to testimony she elicited on cross-examination. We disagree with her contentions and uphold the restitution order.

I. Background Marisela S. and her daughter lived in a rented room in the home where Jennifer lived with Jennifer’s mother. In November 2011, Jennifer entered Marisela’s room and 2 stole three gold rings belonging to Marisela and some other property. An initial victim loss report completed by Marisela’s daughter estimated that one of the rings was worth $1,800, another was worth $1,500, and the third ring’s value was unknown. Marisela did not have invoices or receipts for the rings. The two rings for which estimates were submitted were a gold band engraved with Marisela’s name and an “engagement ring.” Jennifer admitted committing the grand theft and the other counts. The court declared Jennifer a ward and placed her on probation with numerous conditions including that she make restitution. The court also set the matter for a contested restitution hearing. Marisela sought restitution of $2,327.39. The probation officer recommended that the court order restitution of $2,141.34. Marisela was the only witness at the restitution hearing. She testified on direct examination that she had owned the three rings for “at least 15 years.” One ring was Marisela’s mother’s engagement ring. The engraved ring was a 14-karat gold ring with a wide band. The third ring was a ruby ring given to Marisela as an engagement ring by her fiancé. Marisela testified that “the value of [the engraved] ring is over $1,000,” and the value of her mother’s engagement ring was $800. Marisela testified that she “really