In re M.B. CA3

Filed 7/21/22 In re M.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

In re M.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C094551 Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JD2018331)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a prior unpublished opinion, In re M.B. (May 5, 2020, C089273) [nonpub. opn.], we upheld the juvenile court’s judgment finding that defendant M.B. (the minor) committed voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense in the killing of R.A. (Pen. Code, § 192—a lesser included of count 1), actively participated in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)—count 2), and committed assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury on L.B. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)—count 3). We also

1

upheld the juvenile court’s enhancement findings, including its finding that the minor, in the commission of counts 1 and 3, acted to benefit a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared the minor a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 ward, found his maximum confinement time for all charges and enhancements was 21 years, and committed him to the Division of Juvenile Justice. After a subsequent restitution hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minor to pay $20,992.77 in victim restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board. This order is the subject of the present appeal. As relevant to the minor’s arguments, the award included $10,185.98 for L.B.’s lost income, $2,424.55 for T.B.’s lost income, and $999.99 for a security system. The minor contends we must reverse the juvenile court’s order of restitution for L.B.’s and T.B.’s lost income and its finding that J. and G. should not be held jointly and severally liable for the security system. We will modify the order to exclude $2,424.55 for T.B.’s lost income. In all other respects, the restitution order is affirmed. I. BACKGROUND On June 18, 2018, a car drove at high speed down a dead-end street where L.B. and T.B. were outside with their son. The car made a wide right turn and then parked by a trailer. L.B. walked over to the car and asked the three people who were getting out of the car to slow down so that they would not hit the child playing in the street. The minor replied, “[N]o one is going to tell me how to drive.” One of the people said, “ ‘Fuck you. We own this block.’ ” L.B. testified it was not his intent to start a fight or intimidate anyone. The minor’s statement and his posture suggested to L.B. that there would be a fight. The minor walked toward L.B. L.B. tried to create space between them by kicking his foot out. L.B. testified that they exchanged blows and at least three other people joined in: “I just remember getting hit like by a bunch of different hands. That’s all I