People v. Keith C.

Filed 4/24/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re KEITH C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A141529

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Alameda County v. Super. Ct. No. OJ06003300-01) KEITH C., Defendant and Appellant.

The issue presented in this case is whether a juvenile court, having ordered 15- year-old ward Keith C. to pay victim restitution, had authority to enter an abstract of judgment restating the restitution order upon termination of Keith’s wardship, more than two years after he turned 21. We hold that it was authorized to do so, and thus affirm. I. BACKGROUND In February 2006, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 602) alleging Keith, then 15 years old, unlawfully took and drove a Toyota van owned by Kenneth Thomas (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count one) and received, withheld, or concealed the stolen van (Pen. Code, § 496; count two). At a hearing on June 20, 2006, the juvenile court determined the amount of restitution owed to Thomas was $2,180. This amount included towing costs, the loss of the van (which was rendered inoperable), a uniform and tools that were in the van, and

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

lost wages. At the same hearing, the court amended count two of the petition to charge the lesser included offense of misdemeanor receiving stolen property, and Keith admitted that charge in exchange for dismissal of count one. At disposition on July 31, 2006, the court adjudged Keith a ward of the court, placed him on probation, and ordered him to pay $2,180 in victim restitution. Keith did not appeal the disposition. Keith later appeared at numerous status hearings, but defaulted on his restitutionary debt. On July 25, 2011, Keith failed to appear in court, and the juvenile court issued a warrant for his arrest. The minute order for the hearing states the warrant was “issued to expire on [Keith’s 21st birthday, in December 2011].” The warrant was never served, and Keith did not appear at any subsequent hearings. Over the objection of Keith’s counsel, on March 10, 2014 the court ruled that it had authority to issue an abstract of judgment (Judicial Council Forms, form CR-110/JV- 790 (hereafter JV-790)) permitting collection of Keith’s unpaid restitutionary debt. On April 3, 2014, the court recalled the outstanding arrest warrant, terminated Keith’s probation “unsatisfactorily,” dismissed his wardship, and issued an abstract of judgment requiring Keith to pay victim restitution to Thomas in the amount of $2,180. The juvenile court signed the first page of the JV-790, on which a checked box under paragraph No. 1.b. states the court determined on June 20, 2006, that Keith was a person described in section 602. Checked boxes under paragraphs Nos. 2.a. and 4.a. note that a hearing was held as to the amount of restitution (i.e., the June 20, 2006 hearing), which included the value of property stolen or damaged. The checked box in paragraph No. 3.a. states (with added language): “THE COURT ORDERS defendant/child to pay restitution to: [¶] . . . the victim . . . [Kenneth Thomas] in the amount of: $2,180.00.”2