In re C.O. CA3
Filed 6/23/14 In re C.O. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----
In re C.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C074683 Law.
THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV134071)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
C.O.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)1 was filed alleging the minor C.O. committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242), felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)), and robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The minor admitted to grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) as a lesser included offense of robbery; the unrelated
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
vandalism charge was dismissed for insufficient evidence and the battery charge was dismissed in the interests of justice. The juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation subject to various conditions including the payment of $66,361.36 in victim restitution. On appeal, the minor contends the juvenile court erred in ordering the restitution. We affirm. BACKGROUND On May 28, 2012, John Serra was driving to a family barbecue when he saw a group of people in front of a liquor store. Serra knew something was going on as several people had their cell phones out. Serra pulled over to the side of the road about two and a half blocks away, looked out his rearview mirror, and saw a man on a bicycle and a woman walking behind him approach. He heard a discussion between the couple and one of them said, “Those guys jumped that guy and they have a weapon.” Serra turned his vehicle around to the other side of the street, where he pulled over and looked at what was happening. A man came walking by; Serra could tell he had been assaulted. Serra asked the man if he was okay. The man shook his head no and walked past Serra’s vehicle. As Serra watched through his side mirror, he saw another man and a teal green Camaro come up behind the man who had been assaulted. The man who was following started fighting with the assault victim. At the same time, the Camaro drove past Serra’s car and pulled over. The minor and another male jumped out of the Camaro and headed to the fight. Serra testified the minor “was about to join in with assaulting the gentleman.” Assuming someone at the scene had called 911, Serra decided to try to stop the renewed assault on the already injured man. He testified, although he thought they had a weapon, he intended to “[t]ry to make them stop, tell them to stop, to leave him alone, to dissuade them.” He “pulled [his] vehicle around right where they were assaulting him in the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)