In re E.L. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Jan 24, 2022 No. B310363Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering victim restitution, as the victim provided sufficient prima facie evidence of losses and the appellant failed to rebut those claims.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's victim restitution order.
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's request for a continuance of the restitution hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is well-settled, however, that appellant is not entitled to credit for any payments to be made through medical insurance or other third-party sources.”

“an item’s original cost can generally be treated as evidence of replacement cost for purposes of restitution”

“a property owner’s statements of value . . . ‘should be accepted as prima facie evidence of value’”

Filed 1/24/22 In re E.L. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

IN RE E.L., A Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B310363 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. PJ53299) (Los Angeles County) _____________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

E.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E.L. appeals the juvenile court’s order requiring her to pay $5,275.89 in victim restitution pursuant to Welfare and

Institutions Code1 section 730.6. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 21, 2019, appellant was charged in a section 602 petition with battery (Pen. Code, § 242). The detention report alleged that on May 17, 2019, appellant and two other individuals battered the victim, Gustavo A., after he discovered them inside his vehicle. Appellant was placed on informal supervision pursuant to section 654 and a restitution hearing was set for September 17, 2019. Gustavo A. testified at the restitution hearing. As a result of the battery Gustavo suffered bruises, scrapes, open wounds, and a back injury. Gustavo had to go to the emergency room at West Hills Hospital (West Hills) for treatment and submitted an invoice from West Hills reflecting $4,557.04 in medical costs. Gustavo’s vehicle, eyeglasses, cellphone, and insulin pump were also damaged during the assault. He submitted documentary evidence of $948.50 in damage to his vehicle and estimates of $8,688.90 to replace his insulin pump, $633.34 to replace his glasses, and $999.99 to replace his cellphone. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court rejected appellant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the claimed losses and ordered appellant and her two accomplices to jointly and severally pay $15,827.69 in victim restitution.2

In re E.L. CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PERREN, J.

GILBERT, P.J. YEGAN, J.

AI Brief