In re N.D. CA6

Filed 4/1/14 In re N.D. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 N.D., a Person Coming Under the H039775 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Superior. Ct. No. JV37225)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a juvenile wardship petition filed on June 4, 2010, the Santa Clara County District Attorney alleged that N.D. committed a lewd or lascivious act on a child less than 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a), count one) and that he had unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than him. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c), count two.) Subsequently, on September 10, 2010, N.D. admitted the lewd and lascivious act in count one and the prosecution moved the court to dismiss count two.1 N.D. signed and

1 According to the probation officer's report, "on June 3, 2010, [N.D.] had consensual sexual intercourse with the victim, a twelve-year-old female. The intercourse

initialed a waiver form in which he was advised of and waived his constitutional rights. The court declared N.D. to be a ward of the court and informed N.D. that his maximum term of confinement for count one was eight years. However, the court placed N.D. on probation on various terms and conditions including 75 days of electronic monitoring, completion of a drug and alcohol program, a family counseling program, a sexual offender program and completion of a victim awareness workshop. The court ordered that N.D. pay victim restitution for losses sustained by the victim. Ultimately, on April 11, 2013, following a contested restitution hearing, the court ordered N.D. to pay $11,394 in restitution based on documentation submitted by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (the VCGCB). The VCGCB's documentation showed that payments had been made to the victim in the amount of $3,069, to the victim's mother in the amount of $2,385, to one of the victim's sisters in the amount of $972, and to another of the victim's sisters in the amount of $2,538, and to the victim's father in the amount of $2,430. The payments were for mental health services. In a written motion, N.D.'s public defender objected to the restitution requested by the VCGCB on the ground that Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 did not include derivative victims and, therefore, did not authorize payments made on behalf of the victim's family members. At the restitution hearing, N.D.'s counsel argued that restitution should be limited to the "actual victim in this case." The court explained that it "believe[d] the authority of the court rest[ed] in the broad powers of discretion when it comes to victim restitution. [¶] And I don't think it's appropriate . . . to try to determine what was appropriate given what the family sought and obtained through the victim compensation board. [¶] I will order the full amount of restitution at $11,394." At the same time, the court terminated N.D.'s probation and converted the restitution order to a civil judgment.