In re P.V. CA2/6

Discussion Appellant contends this court should remand for a new restitution hearing based on newly amended section 730.6, subdivision (b)(3). Specifically, she contends Assembly Bill No. 1186 is an “ameliorative change” and pursuant to In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada), “this provision will apply retroactively to all cases not yet final on its operative date,” like the present case. As we shall explain, appellant is mistaken. Section 730.6, subdivision (a)(1) provides: “It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive

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

2 restitution directly from that minor.” (Ibid.) The purpose of direct victim restitution is to make the victim whole, rehabilitate the minor, and deter future delinquent behavior. (Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 305; In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1017.) Effective January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill No. 1186 (2023- 2024 Reg. Sess.) amended the rule governing restitution in juvenile delinquency…