In re B.E. CA2/6

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant was found to have committed felony first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) after he and another person broke into the victim’s home and stole several items. The juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him home on probation. Thereafter, the juvenile court conducted a contested restitution hearing. The victim testified and provided evidence as to the approximate value of the stolen and damaged items, including, among other things, a Rolex watch worth approximately $14,000. Appellant’s counsel argued it would be inequitable to order appellant liable for the full amount of victim restitution because he did not act alone during the burglary. Counsel argued that the juvenile court could reopen the sealed and dismissed case of co-offender to require that he pay restitution. The juvenile court declined to do so. In the alternative, counsel argued appellant should only be liable for half the amount of restitution ordered. Again, the juvenile court declined, stating, “[t]he court chooses not to do that.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court ordered victim restitution in the amount of $17,115.44. It…