In re Ronald F. CA1/2

Filed 3/25/15 In re Ronald F. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A141990 RONALD F., (Contra Costa County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. J12-01384)

Appellant Ronald F. appeals after admitting one count of grand theft in a juvenile wardship proceeding. On appeal, appellant contends that the court’s award of $1,138.95 in victim restitution was unlawful because the recipient of the restitution was Contra Costa County Risk Management, which was not a direct victim of his offense. He further contends that, even assuming the recipient was the direct victim, the court abused its discretion because the victim did not incur any actual losses. We shall affirm the juvenile court’s restitution order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 18, 2013, a juvenile wardship petition was filed, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a),1 alleging that appellant, then age 16,

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

had committed robbery pursuant to Penal Code section 211. On October 23, 2013, appellant admitted an allegation of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)), and the juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court and set a maximum term of confinement of three years. At the November 21, 2013 dispositional hearing, the court committed appellant to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) for six months, with an additional 90-day conditional release/parole period. The court also imposed conditions of probation to be followed upon his release from commitment. On December 4, 2013, the Contra Costa County Probation Department filed a notice of probation violation, pursuant to section 777, for appellant’s involvement in a “physical altercation” at OAYRF. According to the probation report, the altercation involved a fight between appellant and several other minors. When OAYRF employee Stephen Craft intervened, he fell and sustained an injury to the back of his head. On December 12, 2013, appellant admitted the probation violation and, on December 27, the court extended appellant’s placement at OAYRF to 12 months. The court deferred determination of the amount of restitution to “victim Stephen Craft.” On May 20, 2014, at the conclusion of a restitution hearing, the court found appellant and six other minors liable for $1,389.95 in restitution “for Victim Stephen Craft, reimbursable to Contra Costa County Risk Management.” On May 22, 2014, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the restitution order. DISCUSSION Appellant contends (1) the juvenile court’s order of $1,138.95 in victim restitution was unlawful because it awarded restitution to Contra Costa County Risk Management, which was not a direct victim of appellant’s offense, and (2) even assuming the court did award the restitution directly to victim Stephen Craft, it abused its discretion because Craft did not incur any actual losses. I. Trial Court Background In an April 15, 2014 “Restitution Supplemental Report,” the probation officer reported that the probation department had identified Stephen Craft as a victim because he was injured during the incident at OAYRF. He was treated for a head injury and,