People v. J.G.

Filed 9/6/16 Certified for Publication 9/20/16 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re J.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A147463 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J09-01675) J.G., Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a juvenile court order finding that his probation terminated “unsuccessfully” because he failed to pay restitution ordered as a condition of probation. We shall reverse the order upon concluding that unpaid restitution debts do not foreclose a finding of satisfactory completion of probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786, subd. (c)(2).)1 Statement of Facts and Juvenile Court Proceedings Defendant was 17 years old in January 2011 when he committed a residential burglary. (Pen Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a).) He was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed in a youth rehabilitation center for nine months. (§ 602, subd. (a).) Defendant was ordered to pay victim restitution of $2,100 and a restitution fine of $100. (§ 730.6, subds. (a)(2)(B), (b)(1).)

1 All further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, except as indicated.

1

Defendant arrived at the youth rehabilitation center in April 2011 and was granted early release in September 2011, graduating from the program in six months. In a later report to the court, a probation officer stated: “According to institutional records and staff, [defendant’s] adjustment to the program was very good. [He] abided by institutional rules; he adhered to staff directions; he interacted well with his peers; and he performed well in school. As part of his therapeutic treatment plan at the [center], [defendant] participated in anger management, impact of crime on victims, life skills, and substance abuse programs.” Defendant returned home. It was reported at a December 2011 review hearing that defendant “has fully complied with the conditions of his probation. . . . [¶] Regarding his adjustment at home, his attitude and behavior have been good according to his mother. [She] reports that [defendant] had been following her rules, completing household chores, abiding by his curfew, and contributing to household expenses. Each time [the probation officer] has spoken to [defendant’s mother], she has related nothing but positive information regarding her son’s conduct at home. [¶] As to school, [defendant] has been participating in the GED program” and “hopes to take his GED examination within the next few months.” He has been working part time in a restaurant. “As to his other conditions of probation, [defendant] has been drug tested on a regular basis and has not tested positive for any illicit substances. [Defendant] has reported to probation as directed and he has been available for home visits. According to probation records, he has not committed any new law violations.” Defendant had not yet paid restitution but said he “expects to begin making payments in the near future.” The probation officer concluded by noting defendant’s “positive adjustment in the community.” As recommended by the probation department, the court ordered defendant’s parole “terminated successfully” and maintained his wardship. The order was issued on December 29, 2011, when defendant was age 18. No further proceedings were had until a January 26, 2016 review hearing, when defendant was age 22. The probation department filed a report asking for termination of