In re Francisco D. CA6

Filed 2/25/15 In re Francisco D. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Francisco D., a Person Coming Under H041168 the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 313JV39941)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Francisco D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A petition was filed on January 13, 2014 (the C Petition), alleging that Francisco D., a minor (15 years old at the time of the petition’s filing), came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The C Petition charged the minor—who was at the time on probation—with conduct that would have constituted felonies or misdemeanors if committed by an adult, namely, attempted theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle, a felony (Pen. Code, § 664 - Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1); and using or being under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a); count 2).1 On April 14, 2014, the court sustained the allegations of the C Petition as to the felony count of attempted vehicle theft. The same

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

day, the minor admitted count 2, as amended, of the C Petition (misdemeanor use of a controlled substance), and admitted felony possession of a sap (§ 22210), as alleged in a later petition (the D Petition) filed by the District Attorney. The court ordered the minor continued as a ward of the court; adjudged that the maximum time of confinement was six years, one month; and granted probation subject to a number of terms and conditions. It subsequently issued an order granting victim restitution in the sum of $200. The minor filed an appeal. We will order that the minor is not personally liable for attorney fees awarded by the court. As modified, we will affirm the court’s dispositional order of April 29, 2014, and will affirm its victim restitution order of June 23, 2014. FACTS Pedro H. owned a 1995 Honda Accord. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on January 9, 2014, Pedro and his girlfriend were in her car in front of Pedro’s house on David Avenue in San José. They were about 10 to 15 feet away from Pedro’s parked car. Pedro heard a noise similar to when a car is locked and observed a male sitting in the driver’s seat of the Honda. Pedro approached the passenger’s side of his car and asked the male what he was doing or looking for; the male then ran away. At that time, Pedro noticed a second person standing outside of the Honda, who also ran away. He asked his girlfriend to call the police. Pedro believed the male was trying to start his car. Pedro had observed the male’s hands by the ignition area and later determined the ignition area had been damaged. Pedro saw the male’s face from approximately seven feet away, and he described the person as having skin color like his own, no hair, and wearing a black jacket and dark jeans. He gave that description to the police when they responded. Several hours later, between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., Campbell Police Officer Andre Ribeiro drove Pedro to the police station. When they arrived, the minor was presented in