In re M.B.

Filed 1/13/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re M.B., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B295284 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. YJ39017) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Does “Dueñas” apply to a mandatory minimum juvenile restitution fine? (People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).) No. This celebrated or denigrated case has its followers and detractors at the Court of Appeal. (See, e.g., People v. Belloso (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 647.) Here, Dueñas attempts to rear its head in juvenile jurisprudence. As we shall explain, even if this case is “good law,” it does not apply to a mandatory minimum juvenile restitution fine.

M.B. appeals a disposition order entered after the juvenile 1 court sustained five petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) for, inter alia, first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The trial court declared appellant a ward of the court, placed him in a camp community program, and ordered him to pay the mandatory minimum $100 restitution fine. (§ 730.6, subd. (b)(1).) Appellant claims that ordering him to pay the $100 restitution fine violates his due process rights because the trial court did not determine whether he had the financial ability to pay such a fine. We do not agree. Appellant was ordered to pay the mandatory minimum restitution fine allowable under section 730.6, subdivision (b)(1). The statute provides that in imposing a section 730.6 fine, the trial court “shall consider any relevant factors including, but not limited to, the minor’s ability to pay . . . .” (§ 730.6, subd. (d)(1).) It further provides that “[t]he consideration of minor’s ability to pay may include his . . . future earning capacity” and “[the] minor shall bear the burden of demonstrating a lack of his . . . ability to pay.” (Id., subd. (d)(2); see also § 730.7, subd. (a) [future earning capacity of minor’s parent or guardian may also be considered].) The presumption is, and we believe, that the juvenile court followed these legislative directions. Dueñas involved a mandatory adult restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) and assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373; Pen. Code, § 1465.8) in an adult criminal matter. (Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1161-1162.) After Dueñas was convicted of driving with a suspended license and granted probation, she