In re A.M. CA3

Filed 9/19/22 In re A.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C095157 Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JJC-JV-DE- 2019-0001028) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor A.M. (minor) appeals from a restitution order issued after he admitted committing an assault with a firearm and the juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. 1 Minor contends there is

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

not substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s determination that his crime caused the loss of income for which the juvenile court ordered restitution. The People argue that the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently established that minor’s crime was a substantial factor in causing the economic loss incurred by the victim. We agree with the People that testimony at the restitution hearing established causation. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND D.O. was walking home on May 26, 2019, when a car drove past and the backseat passenger fired a gun at him multiple times. His mother, Stacy H., heard the noise and came outside to see D.O. running with the car following him. D.O. ran into the house and the car sped away. The prosecution filed a petition alleging minor, at the age of 16, committed numerous crimes, bringing him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to section 602. Minor admitted one offense, the assault with a firearm against D.O. on May 26, 2019. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2).) The juvenile court adjudged minor a ward of the court and, among other things, ordered restitution payable to the California Victim Compensation Board (Board), subject to a later restitution hearing. At the restitution hearing, the prosecution sought an order that minor pay $34,710.05 to the Board. To support this claim, the Board presented documentary evidence showing it had paid $841.00 to Stacy H. for relocation assistance and $33,869.05 to Stacy H. for income loss for the periods from June 7, 2019, through July 1, 2020, and from July 25, 2020, through April 25, 2021. Board records also indicated that Stacy H.’s employer at the time of the May 26, 2019, incident verified she did not return to work after June 6, 2019, “due to this incident” and that the employer terminated Stacy H. on July 25, 2019, for not providing required leave of absence papers. Robin Foemmel Bie, assistant executive director for the Board, testified the Board verified Stacy H. was unable to work due to disability caused by the crime minor committed. Specifically, Stacy H.’s disability was verified by a doctor for the first six months of disability and by a licensed psychologist for the remaining period of disability.