A.G. v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 6/28/21 A.G. v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo) ----

A.G., C091830

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. JDSQ19347)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF YOLO COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

A.G. petitions this court for a writ of mandate compelling the Superior Court of Yolo County to vacate its February 19, 2020 order, requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $749 to V.P. for a cellphone because V.P. paid only $249 to replace the cellphone. We will deny the petition.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 12, 2019, A.G. stole a cell phone from V.P. at a park. According to the probation department’s detention report, A.G. approached V.P. with a couple of friends and asked to use her cell phone. She did not give it to him, but she told him that she would put the phone on speaker while she held it. As she held the phone in her right hand, A.G. grabbed the phone and pushed her in the chest. A.G. and his friends then ran off with the cell phone. On November 21, 2019, a first amended petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602 alleging that A.G., a minor, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)—count 1), conspiracy to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)—count 2), grand theft from a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)—count 3), battery (Pen. Code, § 242—count 4), and child abuse or endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subds. (a), (b)—counts 4 & 5). On December 16, 2019, A.G. agreed to, and respondent juvenile court granted, informal probation pursuant to section 654.2. The district attorney filed a motion, with accompanying exhibits, seeking victim restitution for the loss of the cell phone of one of the victims, V.P. A.G. filed an opposition. A.G. argued that V.P. was entitled to $249 for the “replacement cost” of her stolen cell phone. The district attorney then filed a supplement to the motion with additional exhibits, clarifying that $749 was the appropriate restitution award for the cell phone based on the fair market value. The juvenile court held a restitution hearing on February 19, 2020. No other evidence was presented, but both parties presented argument. A.G. argued that the replacement value of the stolen cell phone should be calculated as the victim’s actual cost to obtain a replacement phone, which was $249 pursuant to her insurance claim. The