In re M.W. CA3

DISCUSSION

Minor‟s sole contention is that the juvenile court wrongly considered the police report at the restitution hearing. Minor argues that this admission rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair, in denial of his right to due process. Minor acknowledges we have twice ruled that hearsay evidence is admissible at the dispositional phase of a juvenile delinquency case (In re Vincent G. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 238, 244 (Vincent G.); In re T.C. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 837, 848

2 (T.C.)) but attempts to distinguish those cases, arguing that in those cases there was some relationship between the dismissed counts and the underlying conviction, thus whether the minor actually committed an uncharged count was not being established solely through hearsay evidence. Here, minor argues, there was no relationship between the uncharged count and the admitted count. Accordingly, he contends that when the People and trial court relied on the police report to establish causation, they violated his right to due process because they relied on only hearsay evidence to prove he had committed the criminal act for which he was now being ordered to pay restitution. We have previously held that:…