In re R.F. CA5

Filed 6/24/14 In re R.F. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re R.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067769

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW128629-02)

v. R.F., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Sarkisian, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo- INTRODUCTION On June 4, 2013, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,1 alleging that R.F., appellant, committed one count of felony robbery of jewelry from Jean Flores (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c), count 1) and violated the terms of his probation (§ 777, subd. (a)(2), count 2). The petition also alleged that count 1 was a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(19). At the conclusion of a contested jurisdiction hearing on June 27, 2013, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition to be true. On July 26, 2013, the juvenile court found appellant to be a ward of the court and committed him to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice for a term of five years two months with custody credits of 100 days. The court also ordered direct victim restitution in the amount of $3,300 pursuant to section 730.6, subdivision (p). The court made appellant jointly and severally liable for restitution with his parents. Appellant contends the juvenile court committed error when it failed to make his brother, who was allegedly involved in the same offense but whose case had not yet been adjudicated, jointly and severally liable for direct victim restitution. We disagree and will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.