People v. Cristian S.
9 Cal. App. 5th 510
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Minor (13 at time) admitted to one count of lewd or lascivious conduct on two children; disposition by Judge Johnson placed him on probation and reserved restitution amount for later determination.
- Victims’ parents sought $26,301.39 for lost wages, rental value of an unoccupied bedroom, replacement of bedroom furniture/clothing, and a therapy dog; probation officer reported the claim.
- Numerous pretrial/restitution-setting appearances before Judge Johnson; contested restitution hearing set ~6 months after disposition.
- On the day of the contested restitution hearing Judge Johnson was at a judicial conference; a visiting judge (Judge Nichols) denied the minor’s counsel’s continuance request and conducted the hearing.
- Judge Nichols disallowed the $13,800 bedroom rental claim, awarded other items, and ordered $12,501.39 in victim restitution; minor appealed arguing an Arbuckle violation and challenging specific awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cristian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Arbuckle require the same judge who accepted a juvenile admission/disposition to also hear a later contested restitution amount? | Arbuckle does not extend to contested juvenile restitution hearings; juvenile statute allows restitution to be determined later and by other judges. | Restitution is part of sentencing, so under Arbuckle the minor was entitled to have Judge Johnson (who accepted the plea and disposition) preside over the restitution hearing. | Arbuckle does not apply to contested restitution hearings in juvenile court; expectation that the same judge would preside was unreasonable given delay and statutory scheme. |
| If Arbuckle applied, was the denial of the continuance reversible error (prejudice)? | Not argued separately by People; court says minor failed to show prejudice. | Denial of Arbuckle right requires reversal/remand; minor contends Judge Johnson’s familiarity mattered. | Even assuming Arbuckle applied, any error was harmless—minor received a fair hearing and did not meet burden to show amounts were excessive. |
| Was restitution for discarded bedroom furniture and clothing authorized and supported? | Victim evidence established prima facie loss and replacement cost; emotional stigma constituted nonphysical "damage" and causation was satisfied. | Minor argued no physical damage, lack of causal connection, and failure to mitigate meant these items were not compensable. | Court held statute’s broad "damaged" and "economic loss" scope covers items discarded due to trauma; causation satisfied under substantial-factor test; minor failed to rebut amounts. |
| Was awarding costs for a purchased therapy dog (including travel) proper? | Medical/psychiatric recommendation supported therapy dog; receipts supported most costs; victims gave testimony about need for a trained dog. | Minor argued a rescue dog would have cost less and travel costs/unnecessary premium breed were excessive. | Award affirmed: victims made prima facie showing and minor failed to present evidence to rebut appropriateness or excessiveness of claimed costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (Cal. 1978) (judge who accepts plea and retains sentencing discretion is generally expected to impose sentence; defendant entitled to that judge or to withdraw plea)
- In re Mark L., 34 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1983) (Arbuckle rule extends to juvenile dispositions)
- Luis M. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2014) (overview of California restitution statutes and juvenile restitution principles)
- People v. Martinez, 127 Cal.App.4th 1156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (Arbuckle does not apply to sentencing on probation revocation given changed expectations over time)
- People v. Jones, 187 Cal.App.4th 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (causation for restitution analyzed with tort principles; distinguishes cause in fact and proximate cause)
- In re A.M., 173 Cal.App.4th 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (substantial-factor test applies to causation in juvenile restitution)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007) (victim bears prima facie burden; court need not determine exact amount if a rational method is used)