Filed 4/18/14 In re Hector R. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re HECTOR R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. H039861 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV3935 8)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HECTOR R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a contested jurisdictional heari ng, t he juvenile court found that appellant

Hector R. had committed one count of misdemeanor sexual battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242,

243.4, subd. (e)(1)). The juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court under

Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed h im on probation . On appeal,

appellant contends that the juvenile court was not authorized to order him to reimburse

the public defender. We find no error and affirm the order.2 I. Statement of Facts

Between September 2011 and March 2012, a ppellant and the victim sat at the

same table in Algebra class at Yerba Buena High School . App ellant touched the victim’s

breast over her clothes on over 20 occasions during class

. Appellant also made sexual

comments to her.

II. Discussion

Appellant contends that the juvenile court was not authorized to order him to

reimburse the public defender f or legal services

. He maintains that the juvenile court

ordered reimbursement “apparently as a condition of probation.”

Welfare and Institutions Code section 903.1, subdivision (a) states in relevant part:

“ The father, mother, spouse, or other person liable for the support of a minor, the estate

of that person, and the estate of the minor, shall be liable for the cost to the county or the

court, whichever entity incurred the expenses, of legal services rendered to the minor by

an attorney pursuant to a n order of the juvenile court.” As the California Supreme Court

observed, this statute is “ merely declarative of the parents ’ preexisting obligation to

provide reasonable and necessary support to their minor children, and to reimburse third

persons provid in g that support upon the parents’ failure to do so. [Citation.]” ( In re

Ricky H. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 513, 521.)

At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found that the probation officer’s

recommendations were “appropriate and in the minor’s best in terest. They will be

adopted as the order of disposition with the changes that we’ve noted. Those are

incorporated by reference and made a part of the court’s order.” 1 Thus, the juvenile court

ordered, among other things, that appellant and his parents pay a restitution fine of $55

1 The probation officer had recommended the following changes: the g eneral f und fine and penalty assessment was $76

, not $70, and a gang association probation condition was added.3

and a g eneral f

und fine and penalty assessment of $76. The recommendations adopted by

the juvenile court also required appellant and his parents to appear before the Department

of Revenue within 30 days for an evaluation of t he ability to pay the fines, penalty

assessments and other reimbursable costs.

The juvenile court then asked the public defender how many appearances he had

made in the case. He replied six. The juvenile court assessed attorney’s fees: “For those

six appearances, the Court will assess attorney’s fees, set those at $300. So the minor’s

parents and minor are ordered to Department of Revenue within 30 days to arrange for

payment of those fees and any other fines[,] fees[,] penalty assessments[,] restitu tion or

cost permitted by law .” (Italics added.) Since appellant’s reimbursement for attorney’s

fees is not permitted by law, appellant was ordered only to appear for an evaluation of his

ability to pay fines and penalty assessments. Moreover, t he minut e order, which was

signed by the juvenile court, specifically states that appellant’s parents were required to

appear before a financial officer for an evaluation of their ability to pay attorney’s fees.

Thus , the record establishes that the juvenile cour t did not order appellant to pay
attorney’s fees. 2

III. Disposition

The order is affirmed.

2 Since the juvenile court did not order appellant to pay attorney’s fees, we need not consider his remaining contentions.4 _______________________________ Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ Bamattre

- Manoukian , Acting P. J.

______________________________ Grover J.