In re Fred F. CA1/4

Filed 8/7/14 In re Fred F. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140481 v. (Napa County FRED F., Super. Ct. No. JV16764) Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Fred F. (appellant) was ordered to pay direct victim restitution in the amount of $23,063.92. He contends on appeal, as he did in the juvenile court below, that the injuries for which restitution was ordered were not reasonably related to his conduct, nor was the restitution award reasonably related to his future rehabilitation. We disagree, and affirm. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDS On March 29, 2011, a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) was filed by the Napa County District Attorney’s Office alleging that appellant committed felony resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and two misdemeanor counts of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)), and cutting a utility line (Pen.

1

Code, § 591). As to the felony count, it was also alleged that appellant resisted arrest with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist a criminal street gang, and to benefit the gang, within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22. subdivision (d). Subsequently, appellant was declared a ward of the court following his admissions to allegations of misdemeanor resisting arrest and vandalism. He also admitted as true the criminal street gang enhancement alleged in the petition. He was placed on probation with conditions imposed. A supplemental wardship petition was filed on December 20, 2011, alleging appellant had committed a misdemeanor crime by giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)), and that he had violated the terms of his probation by violating his curfew condition by his consumption of alcohol, and by associating with persons known to him to be members of a criminal street gang. The probation officer’s detention report noted that appellant, then 15 years old, “was attending a party well past curfew where there were numerous known Norteño criminal street gang members.” There were large amounts of alcohol and marijuana at the party, and appellant ran from law enforcement when they arrived to break up the party. The report noted also that although appellant had not been a ward of the court for very long, “his involvement with criminal street gangs and his substance abuse history is very concerning.” Appellant thereafter admitted he had violated his probation by staying out after curfew and drinking. Appellant was continued as a ward of the court and his probation extended on January 11, 2012. Less than one month later, a supplemental wardship petition was filed alleging two misdemeanor counts of prowling (Pen. Code § 647, subd. (h)), and trespass (Pen. Code § 602, subd. (m)). The supplemental petition also alleged that appellant had violated the terms of his probation by violating his curfew condition, and by consuming alcohol. Appellant thereafter admitted the charges. In a subsequent probation report filed in connection with the supplemental petition disposition, the author noted that appellant admitted prior involvement with the Norteño street gang, and that he had been identified