In re A.R.

California Court of Appeal May 2, 2022 No. B312476Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court possessed the authority to order restitution years after the initial sentencing hearing because the minor was still on probation and had agreed to a restitution condition allowing for future determination. The court further held that the delay did not violate due process and that the restitution amounts awarded were supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Did the juvenile court lack authority to hold a restitution hearing five years after the sentencing hearing?
Did the delay in holding the restitution hearing violate the minor's due process rights?
Did the juvenile court err in the specific restitution amounts awarded to the victims?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are aware of nothing in the language of the statute that prevents a juvenile from agreeing to a later determination of restitution.”

“Due process has a more limited application in restitution proceedings because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution.”

Filed 5/2/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re A.R., a Person Coming B312476 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ (Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE, Super. Ct. No. MJ23162)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

A.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mario Barrera, Judge. Affirmed.

Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

On February 5, 2016, minor A.R. (appellant) admitted certain counts of four petitions filed against him for theft-related offenses committed in 2014 and 2015. The juvenile court found appellant was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 1, declared him a ward of the court, and ordered him placed in the camp-community placement program for a period of seven to nine months, with a maximum confinement term of 24 years. Appellant continued to engage in theft-related offenses from 2016 to 2019. In February and April 2021, while appellant was still on probation for the offenses he admitted in 2016 and later, the juvenile court held a restitution hearing for five victims and, on April 13, 2021, awarded them all restitution. Appellant appeals from the juvenile court’s April 13, 2021 order awarding restitution. He contends the juvenile court lacked authority to hold a restitution hearing five years after his sentencing hearing, and the delay was prejudicial. He also claims parts of the restitution awards to two sets of victims were erroneous. We affirm the restitution order.

BACKGROUND On February 5, 2016, as part of a plea agreement, appellant admitted one count of residential burglary (Krishonda Newsome) as alleged in a petition filed May 12, 2015; one count of robbery (Pablo Garcia) as alleged in a petition filed July 28, 2015; and 12 counts of burglary as alleged in an amended petition filed February 3, 2016. The victims of these 12 burglaries were Ricky Bell, Rhina Hassan, Audrey Anderson, Maria Miranda, Tiffany Lee, Ramiro Gomez, Dorla Anderson,

In re A.R.

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

WILEY, J.

AI Brief