1

Filed 1/31/14 In re A.B. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado)

----

In re A.B., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C072712

(Super. Ct. No. PDL20120015)

The minor A.B. admitted she came within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 6021in that she committed an assault by means of force likely to produce 

great bodily injury on James E., a felony (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The juvenile 

court granted the minor probation for up to six months under section 725, subdivision (a), 

subject to certain terms and conditions including that she pay victim restitution in the 

amount of $1,820, jointly and severally with two other participants in the assault upon the 

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

victim, with the opportunity for a hearing at which the minor could dispute the amount. 

Five months later, the minor’s attorney filed a written motion challenging the amount of 

the restitution order. After a hearing, the court ordered the minor to pay $1,639, jointly 

and severally with the other participants. 

The minor appeals from the restitution order. The minor contends that (1) the 

juvenile court erroneously determined it had jurisdiction to impose restitution after the 

minor had completed informal probation, (2) her due process rights were violated when 

the juvenile court declined to watch a videotape of the assault on the victim to determine 

who landed which blow to the victim in order to determine the amount of restitution to 

levy against the minor, and (3) the juvenile court erroneously set a maximum term of 

confinement when it granted probation. We reject the minor’s contentions. We conclude 

the juvenile court had jurisdiction to review the restitution amount ordered at the 

disposition hearing, there was no due process violation because joint and several liability 

had been established at the disposition hearing, and the minor forfeited any challenge to 

the maximum term of confinement because she did not appeal from the disposition order. 

Accordingly, we affirm the restitution order.

FACTS

On January 31, 2012, during a fight between Christian M. and the victim (James 

E.), the minor and Rebecca S. punched and kicked the victim 47 times in the face and 

back while the victim was on the ground in a fetal position, covering his face and 

stomach. The minor struck the victim 20 times. After the minor and Rebecca stopped, 

Christian returned and used his knee to strike the victim in the face, breaking the victim’s 

tooth. Besides a broken tooth, the victim sustained numerous injuries including a black 

eye, laceration in his mouth, multiple bruises on his forearms, and pain in his back. The 

assault was recorded on several cell phones/iPods. 
3

DISCUSSION

I

Juvenile Court’s Jurisdiction to Review Restitution Amount

The minor contends the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to impose 

restitution in the amount of $1,639 because she had completed informal probation. We 

conclude the juvenile court had jurisdiction to review the restitution amount ordered at 

the disposition hearing.

Background

On March 1, 2012, the victim signed a victim impact statement for the probation 

department and claimed $1,820 in monetary losses for medical expenses: “dental 

$1,820.00 . . . his tooth was broke in 1/2 (half) + went to Emergency Rm to be checked 

out.” 

On March 16, 2012, the juvenile court granted the minor probation for a term of 

six months subject to certain terms and conditions including, as recommended by the 

probation department, that the minor pay victim restitution in the amount of $1,820, 

jointly and severally with Christian and Rebecca, reserving to the minor the opportunity 

for review of the amount if disputed. The minor’s attorney stated he had inspected the 

victim impact statement but had not seen any of the underlying documents to support the 

amount and the prosecutor “assured [him] that those will be coming to [him] soon.” The 

court responded that the minor’s right to challenge the restitution order had been 

reserved. The minor’s attorney commented, “I understand, your Honor. Just for the 

purposes of ten days to challenge, I don’t think that should be started yet until I receive 

copies --” The court replied, “Oh, okay.” Later, in stating the terms and conditions of 

probation, the court ordered the minor to pay restitution jointly and severally with 

Christian and Rebecca and that the minor’s attorney would explain to the minor what 

joint and several liability meant. 
4

The minor waited until the probation term had almost expired to request a 

contested restitution hearing. On August 2, 2012, the minor’s attorney requested that a 

hearing be set for August 20, 2012. On August 20, 2012, the People’s request for a 

continuance was granted to October 1, 2012. 

On August 21, 2012, the minor’s attorney filed a written opposition to restitution,

noting the hearing date of October 1, 2012. The minor’s attorney argued (1) the victim 

had not presented documentation such as an invoice to justify the amount, (2) the minor 

should not be held jointly and severally liable for victim restitution, and (3) the minor 

should not be held responsible for the victim’s chipped tooth because Christian M. was 

responsible for that injury. 

On September 6, 2012, the probation department notified the court that when it 

granted probation in March, it had ordered $1,820 in victim restitution to be paid jointly 

and severally with the minor’s co-participants and the minor’s term of probation would 

expire in September, noting the minor had successfully completed the terms of probation. 

On October 1, 2012, the prosecutor sought another continuance. The minor’s 

attorney sought a severance from the other co-participants and objected to the juvenile 

court proceeding on the issue of restitution, suggesting the court lacked jurisdiction 

because the minor’s probation had ended on September 16, 2012. The court found it had 

jurisdiction, denied severance, and set the contested hearing for October 16, 2012. 

On October 16, 2012, the juvenile court held a hearing on victim restitution, 

reiterating that it found it had jurisdiction. The prosecutor presented the victim impact 

statement, a copy of the victim’s dental bill, and a patient ledger. The juvenile court 

concluded $1,639 was justified by the documentation and awarded that amount, to be 

paid jointly and severally by the minor, Rebecca, and Christian. 

Analysis

Section 725, subdivision (a), permits the juvenile court to grant a section 602 

minor, i.e., one who has committed a criminal act, probation “for a period not to exceed 
5

six months” without adjudging the minor a ward of the court. As a condition of the 

minor’s probation, section 730.6 requires the court to impose restitution to a victim who 

has suffered economic loss due to the minor’s conduct. (§ 730.6, subds. (a)(2)(B), (l).)

Generally, the six-month limit on probation established by section 725 precludes a 

court from imposing conditions of probation that extend beyond that term. “ ‘ “The 

power of the court with regard to probation is strictly statutory, and the court cannot 

impose a condition of probation which extends beyond the maximum statutory period of 

probation.” ’ ” (In re Trevor W. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 833, 839.)

Here, the minor contends the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to order victim 

restitution because her six-month probation term had expired. She is mistaken. Contrary 

to the minor’s contention, the juvenile court did not first impose victim restitution at the 

October 2012 hearing held after her probation period expired. The amount of restitution 

had been ordered at the disposition hearing on March 16, 2012. Based on the victim 

impact statement, the court ordered victim restitution in the amount the victim claimed, 

reserving to the minor the opportunity for a contested hearing to challenge the amount.2 

Five months after disposition, the minor challenged the amount of restitution and a 

hearing was set. The court had jurisdiction to consider the minor’s challenge to the 

restitution order because the minor filed her challenge before the expiration of her sixmonth probation term. The court granted the prosecutor’s continuance motions. The 

minor does not contend the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting the 

continuance motions. 

At the conclusion of the October hearing on the amount of restitution, the juvenile 

court lowered the amount of restitution that the minor must pay jointly and severally with 

 

2 Section 730.6, subdivision (h)(4), provides that “[a] minor shall have the right to a 

hearing before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution” and 

“[t]he court may modify the amount . . . on the motion of . . . the minor.”
6

Christian and Rebecca. Assuming the court did not have jurisdiction to review the 

amount, the minor would be liable for the original, higher amount ordered at disposition. 

Section 730.6, subdivision (l), provides in relevant part, as follows: “Any portion of a 

restitution order that remains unsatisfied after a minor is no longer on probation shall 

continue to be enforceable by a victim pursuant to subdivision (r) until the obligation is 

satisfied in full.” Section 730.6, subdivision (r), allows the restitution order to be 

enforced under Penal Code section 1214 [money judgment enforceable as a civil 

judgment]. 

We conclude the juvenile court had jurisdiction to review the amount of the 

restitution order. 

II

Due Process Violation

At the hearing on the minor’s challenge to the amount of the restitution order, the 

juvenile court declined to review a videotape of the assault, concluding it was irrelevant. 

The minor contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights because the 

videotape would demonstrate she was not acting in concert with Christian when he broke 

the victim’s tooth, a loss the restitution amount covers. We conclude there is no due 

process violation because joint and several liability had been established at the 

disposition hearing.

Background

The facts underlying the allegation of assault by Christian, Rebecca, and the minor 

reflect that Christian and the victim fought, Rebecca and the minor kicked and punched 

the victim when he was on the ground in a fetal position, and Christian returned and 

broke the victim’s tooth. The minor admitted committing an assault by means of force 

likely to produce great bodily injury as did Rebecca. Christian admitted committing a 

battery. When the juvenile court granted probation and ordered payment of $1,820 in 

victim restitution to be joint and several with Christian and Rebecca, the minor’s attorney 
7

was only concerned that the victim had not presented any documentation such as an 

invoice to support the amount of $1,820. The minor’s attorney did not claim the minor 

was not responsible for Christian’s conduct or that the minor should not be held jointly 

and severally liable for the restitution amount to cover the lost tooth.

At the hearing on the minor’s challenge to the amount of the restitution order, the 

minor’s attorney requested that the juvenile court review the videotape of the assault, 

claiming neither the minor nor Rebecca was “acting in concert” with Christian when he 

“kneed the victim in the face, causing the chipped tooth, for which restitution is being 

sought.” Arguing that the issue should have been litigated at the jurisdictional phase, the 

prosecutor objected to viewing the videotape in order to “parse out what injuries 

happened when” and claimed the minors were acting in concert. Christian’s attorney also 

objected to viewing the videotape, claiming the issue of joint and several liability had 

been settled. Rebecca’s attorney joined the minor’s request to view the videotape, 

arguing the fight with the girls was over when Christian approached the victim and kneed 

him in the face. The prosecutor stated that “[b]ut for the girls beating [the victim] up and 

leaving him on the ground, he wouldn’t have been on the ground for [Christian] to come 

up and cause the injury to the tooth.” 

Having read the detention report and the file, the juvenile court commented that 

“this was all part of an ongoing m[elee].” The court also stated the proceeding concerned 

whether the costs were reasonably related to the injury. 

The minor’s attorney argued the hearing should also resolve whether the 

restitution should be joint and several. The minor’s attorney also disagreed that “this was 

some sort of m[elee].” The prosecutor stated that “it’s all one incident they all pled to.” 

Christian’s attorney agreed. 

The juvenile court concluded the videotape was not relevant, everyone was on 

notice when the detention report described the victim’s injuries, and the time for 

contesting responsibility or culpability was at the jurisdictional phase of the proceeding. 
8

Analysis

The minor forfeited any challenge to joint and several liability because the minor 

did not appeal the March 16, 2012 order. At the March 2012 disposition hearing, the 

juvenile court granted probation and ordered the minor to pay victim restitution, as 

recommended by probation, in the amount of $1,820, jointly and severally with Christian 

and Rebecca, reserving to the minor the opportunity to challenge the amount of 

restitution.

By admitting the allegation that she committed an assault by means of force likely 

to produce great bodily injury, the minor admitted her culpability and responsibility for 

the victim’s losses and her obligation to pay does not depend on the culpability of 

Christian. (People v. Madrana (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1051; People v. Zito (1992)

8 Cal.App.4th 736, 746.) The juvenile court evaluated the evidence and determined the 

victim’s economic losses were incurred as a result of the minor’s conduct, that is, her 

assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The court also provided 

the minor with an opportunity to challenge the victim’s claimed losses. 

There was no due process violation. 

III

Maximum Term

Finally, the minor complains the juvenile court set the maximum term for her 

offense at four years. The court did so at the March 2012 hearing when it granted 

probation. The minor’s notice of appeal states she is appealing from the October 16, 

2012 order, “ordering restitution in the amount of $1,639 to victim and will be paid joint 

and several with the co-participants.” She did not appeal from the March 2012 order or 

claim in her notice of appeal that she was challenging the March 2012 disposition order. 

Thus, the minor has forfeited any claim about the juvenile court setting the maximum 

term of four years for her offense.
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment (restitution order) is affirmed.

 HOCH , J.

We concur:

 ROBIE , Acting P. J.

 BUTZ , J.