In re A.B. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Aug 15, 2022 No. E078659Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a minor's legal guardians are not barred from receiving victim restitution for legal fees incurred to terminate guardianship due to the minor's criminal conduct.

Issues

Whether a minor's legal guardian is entitled to restitution from the minor.
Whether the cost of terminating a guardianship is an economic loss incurred as a result of the minor's conduct.
Whether the minor suffered a prejudicial violation of his right to be present at the restitution hearing.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the overriding purpose of the imposition of a restitution order in a juvenile case . . . is to rehabilitate the youth as to any future delinquent behavior and make the victim whole.”

“there was an economic loss that was incurred by the guardians that is directly related to the youth’s conduct in this case”

Filed 8/15/22 In re A.B. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

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

THE PEOPLE, E078659 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J291251) v. OPINION A.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Charles J. Umeda,

Judge. Affirmed.

Matthew C. Tymann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant A.B. (minor) appeals from a juvenile court’s order for

victim restitution. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Minor’s aunt and uncle took legal guardianship of him when he was in 5th grade

because his mother was addicted to drugs. In 2021, their four-year-old daughter

disclosed that minor, who was 14 years old at the time, had been touching her private

parts and having her touch his for several months. Minor admitted what he had been

In re A.B. CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

INTRODUCTION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

MILLER J.

AI Brief