In re A.B. CA3

Filed 1/31/14 In re A.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

In re A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072712

v. (Super. Ct. No. PDL20120015)

A.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The minor A.B. admitted she came within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 in that she committed an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury on James E., a felony (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The juvenile court granted the minor probation for up to six months under section 725, subdivision (a), subject to certain terms and conditions including that she pay victim restitution in the amount of $1,820, jointly and severally with two other participants in the assault upon the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

victim, with the opportunity for a hearing at which the minor could dispute the amount. Five months later, the minor’s attorney filed a written motion challenging the amount of the restitution order. After a hearing, the court ordered the minor to pay $1,639, jointly and severally with the other participants. The minor appeals from the restitution order. The minor contends that (1) the juvenile court erroneously determined it had jurisdiction to impose restitution after the minor had completed informal probation, (2) her due process rights were violated when the juvenile court declined to watch a videotape of the assault on the victim to determine who landed which blow to the victim in order to determine the amount of restitution to levy against the minor, and (3) the juvenile court erroneously set a maximum term of confinement when it granted probation. We reject the minor’s contentions. We conclude the juvenile court had jurisdiction to review the restitution amount ordered at the disposition hearing, there was no due process violation because joint and several liability had been established at the disposition hearing, and the minor forfeited any challenge to the maximum term of confinement because she did not appeal from the disposition order. Accordingly, we affirm the restitution order. FACTS On January 31, 2012, during a fight between Christian M. and the victim (James E.), the minor and Rebecca S. punched and kicked the victim 47 times in the face and back while the victim was on the ground in a fetal position, covering his face and stomach. The minor struck the victim 20 times. After the minor and Rebecca stopped, Christian returned and used his knee to strike the victim in the face, breaking the victim’s tooth. Besides a broken tooth, the victim sustained numerous injuries including a black eye, laceration in his mouth, multiple bruises on his forearms, and pain in his back. The assault was recorded on several cell phones/iPods.