Court Opinion

ID: 9953300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 19:04:05.711615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:49.447677
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/21/24 In re J.A. 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Glenn)
                                                            ----

 In re J.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court                                          C098606
 Law.

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. 23JQ00768)

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 J.A.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         The minor J.A. appeals a judgment entered after his admission to battery with
great bodily injury and the juvenile court’s determination he had discharged a firearm at
an occupied motor vehicle and assaulted six victims with a firearm. The court found he

                                                             1
was a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)1 and imposed a fine in the amount of
$1,000. His sole contention on appeal is that remand for further proceedings is required
because: (1) it is unclear under what authority the juvenile court imposed the $1,000
fine; and (2) assuming the fine was imposed under section 730.6, subdivision (b), there is
no express indication the trial court considered his ability to pay. We will affirm.
                                    I. BACKGROUND
       The juvenile wardship petition alleged the minor committed discharge of a firearm
at an occupied motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246—count I); assault with a firearm (Pen.
Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)—counts II-VII); and battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen.
Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (d)—count VIII). The petition also alleged the minor inflicted
great bodily injury during the commission of count VIII.
       On March 2, 2023, the minor admitted the truth of count VIII, and in exchange,
the court dismissed the enhancement allegation. The remaining counts were set for a
contested jurisdictional hearing.
       At the April 11, 2023, contested jurisdictional hearing, the People presented
evidence that the minor, who was a passenger in a car, repeatedly shot a black revolver at
another car occupied by six people. The juvenile court found true the allegations that the
minor had committed counts I through VII, and the matter was set for a dispositional
hearing.
       At the May 18, 2023, dispositional hearing, the juvenile court declared all counts
to be felonies, declared the minor a ward of the court, and committed him for treatment at
the Maxine Singer Youth Guidance Center for a period not to exceed one year. The court
also determined the minor’s maximum term, awarded custody credits, and found that
reasonable efforts had been made to prevent his removal from his home. Finally, the

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

                                             2
juvenile court imposed a $1,000 restitution fine and placed the minor on probation under
certain specified terms and conditions.
       This court construed the minor’s premature notice of appeal filed from the April
11, 2023 jurisdictional determination, as being filed immediately after the entry of the
disposition order (the effective judgment in a juvenile criminal matter).
                                     II. DISCUSSION
       The minor’s arguments on appeal concern the propriety of the $1,000 restitution
fine imposed at the disposition hearing. His first contention that the fine was imposed
under ambiguous authority is not supported by the record. Rather, the juvenile court’s
oral pronouncement and corresponding signed order clearly imposed a $1,000 restitution
fine for which the minor and his parent(s) would be responsible. This restitution fine was
mandatory pursuant to section 730.6, subdivision (b), which provides: “If a minor is
found to be a person described in Section 602, the court shall impose a separate and
additional restitution fine.” Moreover, the $1,000 imposed is within the authorized
statutory range. (§ 730.6, subd. (b)(1) [authorizing a fine that “shall not be less than one
hundred dollars ($100) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)”].) Thus, this
court discerns no ambiguity for the statutory basis for this authorized restitution fine.
       The minor nonetheless argues the juvenile court’s failure to expressly consider his
ability to pay the $1,000 restitution fine requires reversal to allow the court to conduct
this inquiry. We disagree.
       Absent an indication otherwise, we presume the juvenile court performed its duty
to impose the restitution fine in an authorized manner. (See, e.g., In re M.B. (2020) 44
Cal.App.5th 281, 283; People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1102.) There is
no indication in the record that the juvenile court failed to consider the minor’s ability to
pay when setting his restitution fine at the statutory maximum. (§ 730.6, subds. (b)(1),
(d).) Moreover, the minor bore the burden of demonstrating a lack of ability to pay
(§ 730.6, subd. (d)(2)), and the minor’s failure to object on this basis has forfeited this

                                              3
argument on appeal. (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227; In re Sheena K.
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880-881.) Finally, the statute itself expressly disavows a
requirement that the juvenile court make findings concerning the factors considered in
setting the amount of the restitution fine. (§ 730.6, subd. (e) [“Express findings of the
court as to the factors bearing on the amount of the fine shall not be required”].)
Accordingly, this claim fails.
                                   III. DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                           /S/

                                                  RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

HULL, Acting P. J.

/S/

MAURO, J.

                                              4