In re Mark R. CA2/7

Filed 12/16/13 In re Mark R. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re MARK R., a Person Coming Under B244602 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MJ20717)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARK R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Akemi Arakaki, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded. Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Mark R. was declared a ward of the juvenile court and ordered to pay $14,443.03 in restitution to the City of Lancaster after admitting he had committed two counts of graffiti vandalism with damage of $400 or more. On appeal Mark contends he received inadequate notice of the amount of restitution being sought, the restitution award was not properly calculated and the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining he had the ability to pay the restitution award. We conclude the restitution award was improper to the extent it required Mark to reimburse the City for economic losses that did not reflect its actual cost of removing Mark’s graffiti.1 Accordingly, we reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURL BACKGROUND 1. The Incidents of Vandalism and Delinquency Petitions According to the probation report, Mark, then 15 years old, entered a vacant house owned by the City with three companions and dumped a bucket of paint on the fireplace, carpet and walls of various rooms. On different occasions Mark also “tagged” (spray painted graffiti) various items of public property. On June 12, 2011 two petitions were filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6022 charging Mark with acts of vandalism against the City resulting in damage of $400 or more (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). The first petition alleged between March 17 and 24, 2011 Mark had defaced with graffiti a house owned by the City causing damage to a block wall, exterior stucco, patio door, screen door, interior and entry door, carpet, light fixtures, fireplace and window screens (count 1) and windows and dry wall (count 2). The second petition alleged between February 1 and February 22,