People v. J.G. (In Re J.G.)
243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827
| Cal. | 2019Background
- J.G., a minor, admitted vandalism and trespass at a state historic park and was granted deferred entry of judgment with mandatory probation under Welfare & Institutions Code § 790 et seq.
- The juvenile court placed restitution obligations against J.G.; the probation department sought ~$30–36k in repairs to park property.
- The court held a bifurcated proceeding: first (Dec. 2013/Jan. 2014) to determine ability to pay, then to set restitution amount; the court heard evidence that J.G. received monthly SSI (~$733–$766) and that his mother (payee) spent some funds on household needs.
- The juvenile court found J.G. had the ability to pay, set total restitution at $36,381 and monthly payments at $25, and reserved restitution enforcement; when probation ended the court converted the unpaid balance into a civil judgment and dismissed the petition.
- J.G. appealed, arguing (1) conversion to a civil judgment was improper after dismissal/sealing, (2) the court violated federal law by considering SSI benefits in ability-to-pay, (3) the court’s finding of ability-to-pay based on SSI was erroneous, and (4) the total exceeded a statutory $20,000 per‑tort cap. The Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (J.G.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May unpaid restitution ordered during deferred entry be converted to a civil judgment after dismissal and sealing? | §794 incorporates restitution statutes (§730.6, §742.16) allowing conversion and enforcement as civil judgments. | §793 dismissal/sealing deems arrest never to have occurred and precludes conversion to civil judgment; conversion is inconsistent with expungement. | Held: Conversion allowed. §794’s incorporation of restitution statutes authorizes conversion; §793’s dismissal/sealing does not negate restitution enforcement provisions. |
| 2. Did the juvenile court violate 42 U.S.C. §407(a) by considering SSI in ability-to-pay? | Court may consider SSI when assessing overall financial status; merely considering benefits is not attachment/other legal process. | §407(a) bars use of SSI in any judicial determination to satisfy obligations; considering SSI is equivalent to subjecting benefits to legal process. | Held: Considering SSI for ability-to-pay is not proscribed by §407(a) under Keffeler; §407(a) forbids processes that transfer control over benefits (execution/attachment), not mere consideration. |
| 3. Did the court err in finding J.G. had ability to pay based on SSI? | The record supports considering SSI; ability-to-pay finding valid. | The court relied on SSI as the source of payment and failed to consider earnings capacity; reliance on SSI may violate federal law and was the basis for the finding. | Held: Court likely relied on SSI as source of payments; People conceded remand appropriate. Judgment reversed and remanded for a new ability-to-pay hearing considering future earning capacity and current finances. |
| 4. Did restitution exceed the $20,000 per‑tort cap in §742.16(n)? | Not resolved below; Court of Appeal rejected but Supreme Court did not reach issue given remand. | Argued the total exceeded statutory $20,000 per‑tort cap and thus was improper. | Held: Not decided by Supreme Court; remanded for rehearing on ability-to-pay first. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luis M. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 300 (recognizing restitution under §§730.6 and 742.16 applies in deferred entry context)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (statutory incorporation via "pursuant to" can confirm and limit application)
- Charles S. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.3d 741 (restitution can render juvenile ineligible for informal probation if beyond ability to pay)
- Washington State Dep't of Social & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371 (§407(a) interpreted narrowly: "other legal process" means processes like execution/attachment that transfer control over benefits)
- Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413 (federal protection of Social Security benefits from state legal process)
- Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395 (federal prohibition on using Social Security benefits to attach costs of care)
- In re Lampart, 856 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App.) (post‑Keffeler authority allowing consideration of disability benefits in setting restitution but not using contempt/garnishment to reach benefits)