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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered 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. JV39358)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HECTOR R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the 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 him 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, appellant and the victim sat at the 

same table in Algebra class at Yerba Buena High School. Appellant 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 for 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 an 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 providing 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 interest. 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 general fund

fine and penalty assessment was $76, not $70, and a gang association probation condition 

was added. 
3

and a general fund 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 the 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[,] restitution 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, the minute 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 court 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.