Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re M.T.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Third Division

December 24, 2019

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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.