California Court of Appeals, First District, Third Division
IN RE M.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
v.
M.T., Defendant and Appellant. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,
[257
Cal.Rptr.3d 74] Contra Costa County Superior Court, Hon. Lois
Haight, Judge (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1800198)
Page 948
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 949
COUNSEL
Xavier
Becerra, Attorney General, Berit G. Fitzsimmons, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
First
District Appellate Project, L. Richard Braucher, Richmond,
for Defendant and Appellant.
OPINION
Petrou,
J.
Page 950
Appellant M.T. challenges an August 20, 2018 restitution
order imposed as a condition of her release on a program of
supervision ("informal supervision") under section
654.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] We conclude
dismissal is mandated as the order is neither a judgment nor
an order after judgment for which an appeal is authorized
under section 800.[2]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We set
forth only those facts necessary to give context to our
ruling.
On
March 6, 2018, the Contra Costa County District Attorney
filed a section 602 petition, later amended, alleging
appellant had committed a misdemeanor battery against a
fellow student (victim) on school property (Pen. Code, � �
242, 243.2, subd. (a)(1)). The charge arose from a physical
fight between appellant and the victim during which the
victim’s cell phone and case dropped to the ground. While the
fight was being broken up by school staff, another student
picked up and stole the victim’s cell phone and case.
On
April 4, appellant appeared before the juvenile court and
denied the amended allegation; the matter was referred to the
probation department for a determination of suitability for
informal supervision under section 654.2, subdivision (a). On
May 9, the juvenile court placed appellant on informal
supervision for six months, with standard conditions of
probation. Without objection by appellant, the juvenile court
left the amount of restitution "open," but directed
that appellant and her parents, and a co-participant minor,
would be jointly and severally liable to pay restitution to
the victim pursuant to sections 730.7, subdivisions (a) and
(b), and 730.6, subdivision (j)(4), restitution provisions
generally applicable to minors already adjudicated as [257
Cal.Rptr.3d 75] persons described in section 602. The
juvenile court informed appellant she had a right to appeal
within 60 days of the order and set a restitution hearing.
The
contested restitution hearing went forward on August 20,
2018. In advance of the hearing, the probation department
filed a report stating it had received a victim impact and
claim statement seeking restitution in the aggregate sum of
$989 for: the cell phone ($869.00) and cash ($80.00) located
in the cell phone case stolen during the attack; $10
insurance copay for an emergency room visit for injuries
...