In re E.G. CA1/5

Filed 4/8/14 In re E.G. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re E.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139210 v. E.G., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J13-00091) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant E.G. challenges a juvenile court order requiring him to pay $5,598.57 in direct victim restitution, arguing the losses were not adequately documented by the victim. We reverse a portion of the order and remand the case for a new restitution hearing. I. BACKGROUND1 On January 10, 2013, 16-year-old appellant took his father’s truck without permission and was driving with a friend, Miguel G., in Pittsburg, California. They stopped the truck and chased a 17-year-old classmate (victim), who was walking down

1 Our recitation of the underlying facts is taken from our opinion in a prior appeal, which affirmed the jurisdictional order and probation conditions challenged by appellant, but remanded the case to the juvenile court to determine whether the commitment offenses should be declared misdemeanors or felonies. (In re E.G. (Nov. 8, 2013, A138253) [nonpub. opn.].)

1

the street. When they caught up to the victim, they demanded his shoes and punched him repeatedly, causing him to fall against a fence. The attack continued while the victim was on the ground. Miguel took one of the victim’s shoes, and he and appellant fled the scene. As a result of the beating, the victim suffered a broken arm, as well as bruising on his right eye and stomach, and spent one night in the hospital. Appellant was declared a ward of the juvenile court after he entered a no contest plea to battery causing serious bodily injury and grand theft from the person of another. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; Pen. Code, §§ 243, subd. (d), 487, subd. (c).) The court placed him on probation subject to 270 days’ custody in a youth facility and set the matter for a restitution hearing. An impact statement signed by the victim and submitted to the probation department described the financial consequences of the crimes against him: “Had to pay emergency room, doctor’s visits, parking, mileage to get to San Francisco, medication, ongoing appts, hospital bills ($4,000), loss of shoes, hat. Mother has had to stay home so loses income.” A statement itemizing the victim’s claimed losses included $2,073.57 for ambulance services by American Medical Response, $200 for Air Jordan tennis shoes; $35 for an “Obey” hat, $300 for the gas used in transportation to and from medical appointments in San Francisco, $200 for bridge tolls and parking during the trips to those appointments, $140 for medicine, $3,000 for the one month of income lost by the victim’s mother when she took time off work [“She had to stay home to take me to all the appointments”], and $20,000 for “future recovery.” Also included in the claim were future appointments for “physical therapy, Dr. appoint[ments], and psychological and mental help,” along with a future loss of income of $100,000 to $250,000. No receipts, statements, invoices or documentation were submitted with the claim. In a memorandum prepared in anticipation of the restitution hearing, the probation officer stated she had been unable to contact the victim’s family since the dispositional hearing and recommended that restitution be set at $5,948.57 (presumably the amounts claimed for the ambulance, shoes, hat, gas, tolls, parking, medicine and mother’s lost income).