People v. Daniel D. (In re Daniel D.)
| Decision Date | 04 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | B224161,Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ24281,Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ24277,Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ24279,B224160,B224162 |
| Parties | In re DANIEL D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL D., Defendant and Appellant. In re S.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.J., Defendant and Appellant. In re ALEXANDER E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEXANDER E., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John C. Lawson, II, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Reversed in part and remanded. In all other respects the orders are affirmed.
Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Daniel D.
Lisa Holder, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.J.
Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Alexander E.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., David A. Voet, Jaime L. Fuster and Stephanie Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Minors Daniel D., S.J., and Alexander E. appeal from the orders of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered following their admissions that they entered a dwelling house without the owner's consent, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 602.5). They contend the juvenile court erred and abused its discretion by ordering each of them to pay $10,000 in victim restitution. Appellant Alexander E. also contends the minute order in his case must be amended to conform to the court's oral pronouncement of judgment. We conclude the restitution orders were improper to the extent they required appellants to pay for thefts committed by other minors, where there is no evidence appellants' conduct was reasonably related to that loss. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings, at which time the juvenile court is also directed to correct Alexander E.'s minute order.
Dr. Walter Vukcevical owned a home with a swimming pool in Long Beach. In the summer of 2008, Vukcevical drained the pool and left it empty after a neighbor complained that it was drawing mosquitoes. In September 2008, Vukcevical and his wife left on an extended six-week absence, leaving the house locked and secured, and gave no one permission to enter.
On November 2, 2008, the couple returned to find their house had been burglarized and every room in the house ransacked. The basement wine cellar, which had been locked, had been broken into. Numerous highly valuable items of property had been stolen, including a Rolex watch, a four-carat diamond ring, an antique "art deco" bracelet, artwork, Waterford crystal, Limoges china, wine, "junk silver," and uncirculated silver coins. None of the stolen items had been insured. Beer cans and alcoholic beverage bottles were strewn inside the residence. Six crates packed with china, crystal, and other valuables had been placed on the dining room table, as if ready for transport.Graffiti had been placed on one of the entrances from the street, indicating that loiterers should exit through the back door. Vukcevical alerted police.
Police arrived to find minors Connor W. and Jack B. skateboarding in the empty pool. While police were at the residence, appellants Daniel D. and Alexander E. arrived at the rear gate, with skateboards in hand. The officers determined that the residence had been entered through a sliding glass door leading into the kitchen. A glass panel had been broken and removed, allowing the burglar(s) to reach in and open the door. It appeared as though the residence had been used as "a place to loiter and hang out."
Eventually seven juveniles, including appellants, were detained and questioned by police.2 Alexander E. related that he had heard the residence had been abandoned for 10 years and no one lived in the house. He admitted skateboarding in the pool on October 29, October 30, and November 2, 2008. He also admitted being in the house on October 29, with companions Connor W. and Jack B.; the group had entered through the broken and unlocked sliding glass door. The boys "went inside and walked all over the house upstairs and downstairs touching several items." Alexander E. denied taking anything from the home. He was aware that minor Jeremy S. had hosted a Halloween party in the house; however, Alexander E. stated he did not attend.
Daniel D. told police he had heard from friends that the house had been abandoned and the owner had died. He admitted being at the property at least five times; he was accompanied by Connor W., Jack B., and Alexander E. on at least three of those occasions. He "mainly went to the house to skateboard in the empty pool after school and stayed there until it was dark." The residence was "an after school hangout." He entered the house on October 29, 2008, with Jack B., through the broken sliding glass door. He opened the refrigerator and walked throughout the house touching items. He entered the house a second time on October 31, 2008, when he helped Jeremy S. movecouches and set up for the Halloween party. He denied taking anything from the home, and claimed he did not attend the party.
S.J. told police that he had heard no one had lived at the house for years. He initially admitted being at the house twice to skateboard, but denied entering the house. When told the residence would be fingerprinted and he would be arrested if his fingerprints were found inside, he admitted he had been inside the house and had touched various items. He denied taking anything. A consent search of his bedroom was performed by police; no stolen property related to the burglary was discovered.
Jack. B. told police that the house was a "known hang-out for skateboarding in the empty pool" and "at least 30 to 40 kids knew about it."
Jeremy S. admitted to police that he took jewelry and other items from the residence without permission. A search of Jeremy S.'s residence revealed property taken from the home valued at approximately $70,000.
Juvenile petitions filed on January 2, 2009, alleged that appellants committed first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), and that Alexander E. and S.J. committed trespass by entering and occupying property without the owner's consent (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (m)). As part of a negotiated disposition, all three appellants subsequently admitted committing unauthorized entry of property (Pen. Code, § 602.5), and all other counts were dismissed. The petitions were sustained. Appellants were declared wards of the court and placed home on probation. The court ordered each appellant to pay a $50 fine to the restitution fund. Jeremy S. admitted committing burglary of the house.
The court cautioned before taking appellants' admissions: The minors indicated they understood.
On December 10, 2009, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of victim restitution. Dr. Vukcevical testified that the cost to repair the pool was $3,500 and the cost to repair the damage to the house was $17,000. The value of the stolen and unrecovered property was $171,100, but the doctor only claimed a total of $91,900 for all losses, including the house and pool. The prosecutor stated he was "prepared to put on testimony as to culpability, if the court wants to go into that issue." Counsel for Jeremy S. objected that such evidence was irrelevant, and that liability for the victim's entire loss should be imposed on all minors jointly and severally. Counsel for the other minors argued that their clients had admitted misdemeanor trespass only, had not admitted stealing items from, or causing any damage to, the house; thus they were not jointly and severally liable for the entire loss. Officer Kevin Davis testified that he had individually interviewed the minors. The parties stipulated that the officer would testify to the matters contained in various police reports, and the juvenile court could review the police reports in lieu of the officer's live testimony.
On March 2, 2010, the court ruled on the issue of victim restitution. It explained its reasoning as follows: "When it comes to juvenile restitution orders, the question is not only as to whether or not to make the victim whole," but also to rehabilitate the minors. Because the house "became an open-door playground for many minors through word of mouth [to] go into and trespass [and] vandalize the home, to steal property from the home," it was "somewhat difficult" to determine the appropriate amount of restitution or who committed the actual thefts. All the minors were, or should have been, aware that the house was occupied and they should not have been there. The court opined that Jeremy S. "may be primarily responsible" for the restitution, based on the police reports. However, "there is a certain amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial