In re A.H. CA4/3

California Court of Appeal May 18, 2022 No. G060339Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution for therapy sessions attended by the victims' family members, as the court properly exercised its judgment in determining the fair amount of economic loss.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding restitution for therapy sessions for family members of victims after expressing doubt regarding the necessity of the full amount of sessions?
Did the trial court err in its factual determination of the number of therapy sessions attended by the victims' family members?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“My goal is to just try to figure out what is the fair amount to reimburse the people for the therapy.”

“Contrary to Minor’s assertion, the court never found the full amount of therapy was “excessive and not warranted.””

Filed 5/18/22 In re A.H. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re A.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G060339 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19DL0565) v. OPINION A.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Heather B. Arambarri and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

A.H. (Minor) pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); counts 1 through 3), one count of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count 4), and one count of street terrorism (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a); count 5). Minor also admitted counts 1 through 4 were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)). The court declared Minor to be a ward of the court and placed him on probation with a variety of terms and conditions, including he pay $14,042 in restitution to the victims. This included restitution for therapy sessions attended by the mother and brother of one of the victims and the mother of another victim. On appeal, Minor contends the court erred by ordering restitution for the full amount of therapy sessions attended by the three family members. Among other things, he argues the court found the full amount of therapy was excessive but still awarded the full amount of restitution. We disagree and affirm the order.

In re A.H. CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

SANCHEZ, J.

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

GOETHALS, J.

AI Brief