In Re Paul R.

People v. Paul R.

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 172·42 Cal. App. 4th 1582·50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 421·96 Daily Journal DAR 2287·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1382
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 1996F023084California2,707 words

Opinion

Opinion

Acting, J.

In People v. Cotter (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1671 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 606 ], this court held a restitution fine cannot be imposed pursuant to Government Code section 13967, subdivision (a) if victim restitution imposed in lieu of all or a portion of that fine under subdivision (c) of that code section equals or exceeds the $10,000 maximum fine allowable under subdivision (a). In this case we will conclude that our reasoning in Cotter is equally germane to juvenile court restitution orders. In order to determine whether restitution ordered in this case exceeds the $1,000 maximum for a juvenile restitution fine, we must decide whether the restitution orders arise from a single proceeding or separate proceedings. We will conclude the orders arise out of a single proceeding and the total of victim restitution and restitution fines exceed the $1,000 restitution fine limit.

The issues arise from these facts:

At the dispositional hearing on August 1, 1994, the court declared the minor to be a ward of the juvenile court, placed him on probation and committed him to a local facility, Camp Erwin Owen. Pursuant to former section 729.6, the court ordered the minor to pay direct victim…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.