Court Opinion

ID: 9408831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 20:05:14.028251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.146986
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/13/23 In re I.S. CA4/1
                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                  COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   DIVISION ONE

                                           STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re I.S., A Person Coming Under the                                D081589
Juvenile Court Law.
_____________________________________

THE PEOPLE,                                                          (Super. Ct. No. J244230)

         Plaintiff and Respondent

         v.

I.S.,

         Defendant and Appellant,

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed.
         Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.

         I.S. appeals after he admitted the truth of making a criminal threat
against A.B., another minor, at school. The court ordered restitution to A.B.’s
father, J.B., in the amount of $1,922.04 for missed work. I.S.’s court-
appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but seeking our independent
review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no
arguable issue and affirm.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      In November 2021, I.S. displayed a knife to A.B. at their school. J.B.
had A.B. stay home from school after the incident because A.B. was afraid.
I.S. was charged in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition with
two counts of making a criminal threat against two different minors (counts 1
and 2; Pen. Code,1 § 422), possessing a knife on school grounds (count 3; §
626.10, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor exhibiting a weapon (count 4; § 417,
subd. (a)(1)). I.S.’s counsel declared a doubt as to I.S.’s competency. (§ 1368.)
The court authorized a competency evaluation. I.S.’s counsel later stipulated
to I.S.’s competency and the court reinstated the proceeding.
      I.S. admitted count 1 with the agreement he would be made a ward of
the court and should he successfully complete one-year of supervision, that
count would be reduced to a misdemeanor. The court dismissed the
remaining counts and continued the proceedings for a disposition hearing. At
the disposition hearing, the court made I.S. a ward of the court and continued
the proceedings for a restitution hearing. At a restitution hearing, J.B.
requested four days of restitution for missed work while home with A.B. The
People also requested J.B. be reimbursed for four hours of missed work to
attend the restitution hearing. The court found that J.B.’s taking sick leave
and time off to care for A.B. and attend the restitution hearing did not
constitute a windfall and awarded A.B. $1,922.04 in restitution.

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                        2
                                  DISCUSSION
      Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal but asked this
court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436. Counsel has identified the following issue that “might arguably support
the appeal” (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744), whether the court abused its
discretion in awarding restitution in the amount of $1,922.04. We granted
I.S. permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. The
issue identified by counsel lacks arguable merit.
      The California Constitution gives trial courts broad power to impose
restitution on offenders for losses caused by their criminal conduct. (Cal.
Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(A) [“all persons who suffer losses as a result
of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from
the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer”].) Welfare
and Institutions Code “[s]ection 730.6, subdivision (h) directs the court to
order restitution ‘of a dollar amount sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or
victims for all determined economic losses incurred as the result of the
minor’s conduct’ unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not
doing so.” (In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 847, 853.) “A
restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for [his or her] actual
loss and is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall.” (People v.
Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172.) “[R]estitution awards are
vested in the trial court’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.) Wages lost by the parents of a minor victim while caring for the
injured minor are compensable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (H)(1)(c).)
Sick leave used is also a compensable loss. (In re K.F., supra, at p. 666.)

                                         3
      Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible
issue listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably
arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented I.S. both at
trial and on appeal.
                               DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                  CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

                                      4