In re D.H. CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 2016A145212California2,948 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

INTRODUCTION

D.H. appeals from a victim restitution order imposed as part of the disposition of a juvenile delinquency wardship petition filed against him by the Alameda County District Attorney. Appellant contends the order that he pay $1,374.99 in victim restitution was an abuse of discretion because it was not reasonably related to his wrongful conduct, or to his rehabilitation. We disagree and affirm the order.

II.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 4, 2014, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602, subdivision (a) alleging that appellant committed an assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). On June 23, an amended petition was filed in which the assault charge was alleged as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. That same day, appellant admitted the reduced assault charge. In an August 2014 disposition report, the Alameda County Probation Department recommended that appellant be declared a ward of the court, placed on probation, and ordered to pay restitution to Sabrina Finister (Finister), the victim of appellant’s assault. Finister had submitted a claim for…

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.