Filed 1 / 24 / 22 In re E.L. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

I N RE E.L ., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

_____________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE O F CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.L

. ,
Defendant and Appellan t

. 2d Juv. No. B 310363 (Super. Ct. No

. PJ5 3299 ) ( Los Angeles County )

E.L

. appeals the juvenile court’s order requiring her to pay $5,275. 89 in victim restitution pursuant to Welfare and2

Institutions Code 1 section 730.6. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order . We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 21, 2019, appellant was charged in a section 602 petition with battery (Pen. Code, § 242 ). The detention report alleged that on May 17, 2019, appellant and two other
individuals battered the victim, Gustavo A

., after he discovered
them inside his vehicle

. Appellant was placed on informal supervision pursuant to section 654 a nd a restitution hearing

was set for Sept e mber 17, 2019.
Gustavo A. testified at the restitution hearing. As a resul t of the battery Gustavo suffered bruises, scrapes, open wounds

, and a back injury

. Gustavo had to go to the emergency room at West Hills Hospital (West Hills) for treatment and submitted a n invoice from West Hills reflecting $ 4,557.04 in medical costs.
Gustavo’s vehicle

, eye glasses, cellphone, and insulin pump were also damaged during the assault. He submitted documentary
evidence of $948.50 in damage to his vehicle and estimates of $8,688.90 to replace his insulin pump, $633.34 to replace his glasses, a nd $ 999.99 to replace his cellphone. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court rejected appellant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the claimed losses and ordered appellant and her two accomplices to jointly and severally pay $15,827.6 9 in victim restitution. 2

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the court’s restitution order, but subsequently abandoned her appeal because the order was not appealable

. ( In re M.T. ( 2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 947, 953

- 954.)3 Appellant’s informal supervision order was subsequently continued pursuant to section 654.2 and the matter was ultimately set for a termination hearing on February 3, 2021

. At the hearing, appellant reiterate d her assertion t hat the evidence was insufficient to support the amount of restitution ordered and alternatively asked the court to order that appellant and her accomplices each be ordered to pay one

- third of the restitution

amount , i.e., $ 5

, 27 5 .89, rather than imposing joint and several liability. The court rejected appellant’s claim of insufficient
evidence but reduced her restitution order to $5,275.89 as requested

, entered that order as a civil judgment, dismissed the section 602 petition and or dered the records thereof sealed, and terminated jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support
the restitution order. We disagree.

“ Section 730.6 governs restitution in cases where a minor is adjudicated a ward of the court pursuant to section 602. [Citation.] Section 730.6 parallels Penal Code section 1202.4, which governs adult restitution. [Citation.]” ( In re M.W. (200 8) 169 Cal.App.4th 1, 4.) “Generally speaking, restitution awards
are vested in the trial cour t’s discretion and will be disturbed on appeal only where an abuse of discretion appears.” ( In re K.F. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 655, 661.) “‘“When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing
court.”’ [Citation.]” (

In re Johnny M

. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132.)
When a minor contends the evidence is insufficient to support a restitution order, we r eview the order for substan tial evidence. ( In re K.F

. , supra , 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 661

- 662.) In4

conducting this review, “‘ “the power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicte d

, ” to support the trial court’s findings. ’ ” ( People v. Sy ( 2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 44, 63.) The standard of proof at a restitution hearing is a preponderance of the evidence, and if “ ‘ the circumstances reasonably justify the [court’s] findings, ’ the judgment may not be overturned when the circumstances might also reasonably support a contrary finding.” ( Ibid

. ) In ordering restitution, the court may consider a property owner’s stateme n t about the value of stolen or damaged property as prima facie evidence of his or her economic losses

. ( In re S.S. (1995) 37 Cal .App.4th 543, 547 .) Once the victim makes the requisite prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the amount of claimed losses. ( People v. Fulton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 876, 886.) This procedure “complies with the
statutory mandate that the amount of restitution is to be based on the ‘loss claimed by th e victim’ and the designated right of the defendant to a hearing ‘to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution.’ [Citation.]” ( Ibid

. ) Appellant does not dispute that the evidence is sufficient to
support the amounts ordered to compensate the victim for the damage to his vehicle and the costs to replace h i s eyeglasses and insulin pump. She claims, however, that the victim presented
insuf ficient evidence of $4,557.04 in medical and related

expenses . She notes that the invoice the victim submitted from
West Hills states that “this is not a bill and does not show the amount you owe. The amount you owe will be sent to you separately on your hospital bill once payments from your insurance company o r other adjustments are applied to the total
shown here. ” The invoice also show s a total of $4,631.53,5

followed by $ 4,557.04 in “[a]djustments/dis counts,” which results
in a total amount of $74.49

. 3 It is well

- settled, however, that appellant is not entitled to credit for any payments to be made through medical insurance or other third

- party sources

. ( In re Brittany L. ( 2002 ) 99 Cal.App. 4 th 1381, 1387

- 1388 [recognizing
that “trial courts are not to consider whether the victim has been, or will be, reimbursed from third parties in ordering victim restitution”].) Appellant fares no better in claiming the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the estimated replacement cost of the victim’s cellphone (an iPhone 6S) was $999.99. In addition to testifying, the victim submitted document ation reflecting that a new iPhone 6S would cost $999.99. Appellant argues that “ [ a ] lthough Gustavo testified that the lost cell phone was this same, precise make and model, there was no evidence presented that the cell phone was new at the time that it was
broken.” But appellant offered no evidence below to rebut the
victim’s prima faci e showing of his claimed losse s for the phone. Accordingly, h er claim of insufficient evidence fails. ( See In re
S.S.

, supra , 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 547, quoting People v. Foster ( 1993 ) 14 Cal.App.4th 939, 946 [recognizing that “ an item’s original cost can gener a lly be treated as evidence of replacement

cost for purposes of restitution” and that “a property owner’s
statements of value . . . ‘should be accepted as prima facie
evidence of value ’”].)

3 Appellant also notes that the court imposed $ 4,557.04 in restitution for the victim’s medical expenses

— which represents the “[a]djustments/discounts”

— rather than the full $4,631.53. The People do not urge us to modify the restitution order to include the additional $74.49, so we decline to do so.6 In arguing that the evidence is insufficient to sup port the restitution order, appellant also contends the juvenile court erred in denying her request for a continuance of the restitution rehearing so that she could “conduct further investigation for
further substantive evidence.” As the People note

, app ellant merely sought a continuance to question the officer who
interviewed the victim regarding the injuries he claimed to have suffered as a result of the battery. In any event, appellant fail ed to establish good cause for a continuance such that the court’s denial thereof was an abuse of discretion, no r does she
demonstrate that the denial of a continuance constitutes
reversible error. ( See In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 605 [

juvenile court’s denial of a continuance revi ewed for
abuse of discretion ; In re Gerald J. (1991) 1 Cal.App. 4th 1180,
1187 [recognizing that an erroneous denial of a request for a continuance compels reversal only if a “different result” is reasonably probable].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment (restitution order) is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT

, P. J. YEG AN

, J.Morton Rochman , Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Courtney M. Selan , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellan t

. Rob Bonta , Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel

, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and John Yang , Deputy Attorney
Ge neral, for Plaintiff and Respondent.