In re L.B. CA2/6

Filed 10/20/22 In re L.B. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.B., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B317426 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. 19JV-00233) Law. (San Luis Obispo County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

L.B. appeals from a restitution order entered as a condition of deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) after he admitted a felony vandalism allegation. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1).) He contends the juvenile court erred in failing to consider the negative impact of the $126,640.07 restitution amount on his rehabilitation. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2019, 12-year-old L.B. trespassed on Keith Garl’s property and drove a tractor into several pieces of equipment, causing damage. The district attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602 petition alleging one count of felony vandalism against L.B. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). The district attorney subsequently filed notice of L.B.’s eligibility for DEJ. L.B. admitted the vandalism count. The juvenile court granted DEJ pursuant to section 790. As a condition of DEJ, the court ordered L.B. and his parents to pay direct victim restitution. In 2021, the juvenile court held a restitution hearing. Garl testified regarding the damage to his equipment and property, and he submitted photographic evidence. He estimated the amount for repairing and cleaning his property as follows: $51,393.37 for equipment repairs, $4,130 for fence repair, $654.75 for tractor tire repair, and $70,461.95 for cleanup of oil and fuel that was spilled onto his property. Garl submitted documents of the estimates he obtained from repair and fuel cleanup companies. Garl also estimated $36,000 for rental loss due to wood storage in a rental space for one year, and $77,000 in lost profits for firewood sales. The juvenile court found Garl established a prima facie case for damages with respect to “the equipment, the fence, and the tire” and for the cleanup costs for the oil and fuel spill. It found that Garl did not establish a prima facie case for the loss of income from firewood sales or rental income. The juvenile court ordered L.B. to pay a total of $126,640.07 to Garl for the property