CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Delinquency Matters
......Disposition
.........Restitution Fines
 23 Cards On This Topic:
  • Mandatory restitution fine required in all §602 cases.
  • City's restitution model inadequate as it included non-economic losses by V of M's graffiti vandalism, and cleanup sums did not reflect actual cleanup cost; abuse of discretion to conflate W&IC 730.6 showing with cost averaging per Graffiti Program.
  • As distinguished from Luis M., a factual nexus existed here between D's graffiti work and trial court's restitution order—the DA presented evidence of D's specific acts, used in calculating the actual amount of restitution.
  • If juv. ct. enters a valid restitution order ••when the juvenile is under 21••—at a time when the court indisputably has jurisdiction—that order remains enforceable beyond the period of wardship in the same manner as any civil judgment.
  • M must pay restitution to V for billed medical services even though hospital found V indigent and wrote off the debt as uncollectable.
  • Restitution order issued after M turned 21 simply restated remaining balance on original order made when he was under 21–it was not a new order but a memorialization of the original and court retained jurisdiction.
  • Direct victim restitution ordered under W&IC 730.6 may include amounts billed for V's Kaiser/HMO medical services.
  • W&IC 742.16 applies in DEJ cases and court required to consider M's ability to pay before ordering restitution for graffiti removal.
  • Trial court to enter new restitution order for M to pay fees and costs equal to pro rata share of PI settlement allocated to V's medical expenses, property damage, and lost income.
  • Restitution and fees set at $341, juvenile ct. correlated to court's "imperfectly articulated reasoning" and was within its discretion.
  • W&IC 730.6's silence on attorney's fees and costs is mere legislative oversight and courts may look to adult restitution statutes for authority.
  • Juvenile court erred by ordering victim restitution for past medical expenses in excess of actual amount expended or incurred; V only liable for amount expended by Medi-Cal and cannot be billed by provider for excess.
  • Trial court could properly order minor gang member to pay for V's funeral even where M was not actual murderer.
  • Under Johnny M. and H&S Code, juv. court issued authorized restitution order to reimburse fire dept.'s expense in fighting the fire M started playing with fireworks.
  • Juvenile court did not err by failing to identify losses or specify their amount in court's restitution order.
  • Although W&IC 777 does not authorize imposition of fines, court has authority to impose fines in a section 777 proceeding pursuant to other statutory provisions.
  • W&IC 730.6's mandate that restitution be ordered for all "economic losses" permits reimbursement to school district for labor costs of salaried employees who repaired damage done to school by M.
  • People's failure to object to trial court's omission of restitution and parole revocation fines at sentencing waives issue on appeal.
  • Juvenile restitution fine improper as victim restitution imposed in lieu of all or portion of that fine equaled $1,000 maximum.
  • Where V’s losses sufficiently described in probation report to put M on notice to investigate and oppose if he disagreed, burden shifts to M to refute.
  • By analogy to adult law, juvenile court not required to make finding of ability to pay before imposing minimum statutory restitution fine.
  • Order that M pay restitution for felony must be based on ability to pay [W&IC 730.6(b)]; W&IC 730.6(a) applies only when separate fine already imposed.
  • Cases discussing restitution fines.


    •