People v. J.U. CA2/6

Filed 7/27/22 P. v. J.U. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B314869 (Super. Ct. No. 18JV00214) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

J.U.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor J.U. appeals a juvenile court order requiring her to pay $3,200 restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board (Board) for unskilled in-home services for care of the victim of her criminal offenses. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the restitution order and affirm. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 202, subd. (f)1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 649.23 [Reimbursement of Medical-Related Services].)

All statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In February 2019, the Santa Barbara District Attorney filed a petition and later an amended petition charging J.U. with forcible sex crimes, assault likely to produce great bodily injury with a great bodily injury allegation, criminal threats, and sexual battery, among other crimes. (§ 602.) On June 20, 2019, J.U. admitted the assault and great bodily injury allegation, and felony false imprisonment crimes. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(4), 12022.7, subd. (a), 236.) On the prosecutor’s motion, the juvenile court dismissed the remaining charges in the interests of justice. At the later disposition hearing, the court ordered J.U. placed on probation with electronic monitoring. As the factual basis for her crimes, J.U. admitted repeatedly striking her former friend C.J. in the face as C.J. stood at a public bus stop. C.J. required hospitalization and two surgeries to repair a nasal fracture. On April 4, 2021, J.U. sought to terminate wardship pursuant to section 785. The juvenile court stated that it would terminate wardship following resolution of restitution. At a later restitution hearing, J.U. disputed the $3,200 payment by the Board to C.J.’s mother (Mother). J.U. did not dispute payment, however, of $567 in mental health care benefits. J.U. asserted that the home health care payments were unsupported as necessary and that restitution should be measured by Mother’s $765 in lost wages. The court rejected J.U.’s argument and ordered her to pay $3,767 ($3,200 plus $567) restitution to the Board as reimbursement for those funds paid to Mother. J.U. appeals and contends that the restitution award of $3,200 for unskilled in-home care giving is not supported by sufficient evidence.