In re B.E. CA2/6

Filed 10/18/22 In re B.E. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re B.E., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B315115 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. PJ53315) Law. (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B.E. appeals from an order requiring him to pay victim restitution. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6)1 He contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it declined to impose

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 1 Institutions Code, unless otherwise stated.

restitution jointly and severally on appellant’s co-offender. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant was found to have committed felony first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) after he and another person broke into the victim’s home and stole several items. The juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him home on probation. Thereafter, the juvenile court conducted a contested restitution hearing. The victim testified and provided evidence as to the approximate value of the stolen and damaged items, including, among other things, a Rolex watch worth approximately $14,000. Appellant’s counsel argued it would be inequitable to order appellant liable for the full amount of victim restitution because he did not act alone during the burglary. Counsel argued that the juvenile court could reopen the sealed and dismissed case of co-offender to require that he pay restitution. The juvenile court declined to do so. In the alternative, counsel argued appellant should only be liable for half the amount of restitution ordered. Again, the juvenile court declined, stating, “[t]he court chooses not to do that.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court ordered victim restitution in the amount of $17,115.44. It terminated jurisdiction, ordered appellant’s record sealed, and entered the restitution order as a civil judgment. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered him to pay the full amount of victim restitution rather than opening the sealed case of appellant’s co-offender and