In re E.M. CA1/5

Filed 6/28/21 In re E.M. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re E.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A159968 E.M., (Contra Costa County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. J17-01002)

E.M. appeals the juvenile court’s award of $30,000 in restitution for lost wages. He contends the court’s order was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND E.M. was originally adjudged a ward of the court in 2017, following a sustained felony violation for second degree robbery. On November 6, 2018, a supplemental wardship petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a),1 alleging that E.M. had committed assault

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and assault with a deadly weapon (id. § 245, subd. (a)(1)). According to the probation officer’s report, on October 27, 2018, E.M. and two adult men had a verbal argument with the victim in a commercial parking lot. E.M. punched the victim and swung a knife in front of the victim’s face. Both E.M. and the victim fell to the ground, and E.M. continued to swing the knife and strike the victim with closed fists in the head, face, and upper body region. The victim was taken to the hospital and suffered a fractured left knee. E.M. pled no contest to the assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury count and, in exchange for the plea, the remaining assault count was dismissed. On December 27, 2018, the juvenile court continued E.M.’s wardship and ordered him to participate in the Youthful Offender Treatment Program. It also found E.M., his parents, and his codefendants jointly and severally liable to pay restitution as ordered by the court. The prosecution submitted a request for direct victim restitution totaling $15,793.83: $5,593.83 in medical bills and $10,200 in lost wages. It also submitted a restitution request form completed by the victim in December 2018, itemizing two months of lost wages at a rate of $200 per day. At the April 12, 2019 contested restitution hearing, the victim testified regarding his medical bills, and the bills were admitted into evidence. The victim further testified about his employment. Prior to the assault, he was working at a moving company, 680 Movers, and supplementing that income with work from a contractor. In the two months before he was injured, he worked consistently at least six days per week and earned at least $200 per day. He was, however, unable to continue working because of his injury from