In re Christopher G. CA4/1

Filed 9/3/20 In re Christopher G. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re CHRISTOPHER G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D077061 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J242345)

v.

CHRISTOPHER G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Elisabeth R. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In response to two juvenile court petitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, Christopher G. (the Minor) admitted one count

of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and one count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The remaining count and

allegations were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.2 Following a disposition hearing, the Minor was declared a ward of the court and placed on probation. Two months later, the Minor admitted violating his probation. He was committed to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 85 days. The court held a restitution hearing and ultimately ordered restitution to victim M.S. in the amount of $295. As to victim J.W., the court ordered restitution in the amount of $160. The Minor appeals raising two sets of issues. First, he contends the juvenile court erred in failing to expressly state whether the assault count is to be a felony or a misdemeanor. The People concede the record does not contain an express determination by the court and therefore remand is necessary to allow the juvenile court to decide and state it on the record. (In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1210-1211.) We will accept the People’s concession and remand the matter to the juvenile court for compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 702. The principal contention on appeal is that the court abused its discretion in awarding restitution to two victims because their claims were not adequately documented. We will reject the latter contention and find there is an adequate basis in this record to support the court’s decision.