Filed 10/9/25 In re J.A. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re J.A., a Person Coming Under H053004 the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 23JV46422A) PUBLIC REDACTED THE PEOPLE, VERSION OF OPINION Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.A., Defendant and Appellant.

J.A. appeals from a restitution order requiring her to pay $17,633 in victim restitution. Her appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which her counsel raises no issues for appeal and asks this court for an independent

 This case involves material from a sealed record. In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 8.46(f)(1) and (f)(2), we have prepared both public (redacted) and sealed (unredacted) versions of this opinion. We hereby order the unredacted version of this opinion sealed. review of the record. Counsel has informed J.A. of her right to file a supplemental brief, and J.A. has not done so. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to J.A., we affirm the restitution order.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 2023, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 alleging that J.A. came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. [REDACTED]

On August 8, 2024, the juvenile court granted J.A.’s motion pursuant to section 654.2 for informal supervision.2 [REDACTED]

[REDACTED]3 Pursuant to a written,

Victim K.F. sought $17,633 in restitution. J.A. objected to this amount, and on January 23, 2025, the juvenile court held a contested restitution hearing. K.F. testified at the hearing about the incident underlying the petition. [REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

K.F.’s restitution request of $17,633 was based on [REDACTED]

On cross-examination by J.A.’s counsel, K.F. acknowledged that she had been to a chiropractor prior to the incident, had dental insurance at the

time of the incident but did not get the dental implant while she had insurance because she was told the procedure would not be covered, and pursued a workers’ compensation case based on the incident.

J.A.’s counsel did not object to the $1,565 for out-of-pocket dental expenses. However, J.A.’s counsel objected to the $11,388 for future dental work that was “exceedingly costly . . .[,] not pursued and not estimated when health insurance and dental insurance were in place.” Counsel characterized the request as not “appropriate” and a “windfall.” Counsel also objected to the payment for chiropractic expenses as lacking a nexus to the incident.

Counsel acknowledged that the juvenile court had the discretion to award full or partial restitution “as far as what has been documented and claimed.” The assistant district attorney argued that the court had the discretion to award restitution for future losses, particularly where the victim has ongoing injuries. [REDACTED]

The juvenile court in its oral ruling cited its broad discretion under section 730.6 to “make[] sure the victim gets compensated for all demonstrated or determined economic losses” without regard to insurance.

Further, it noted it had the authority to award restitution for future medical expenses. With respect to the request for chiropractic expenses, the court found credible K.F.’s statement that her back pain was [REDACTED]. The court further found the amount paid for chiropractic expenses was reasonable. The court also found K.F. credible as to her explanation for why she did not get the dental implant done when she still had insurance. The court also found reasonable the amount of the dental implant. The court ordered J.A. to pay K.F. restitution in the amount of $17,633.

On February 5, 2024, the juvenile court held a hearing [REDACTED] The court [REDACTED] dismissed the petition, and ordered the records sealed.

J.A. timely appealed the juvenile court’s restitution order.4 II. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having undertaken an examination of the record related to the restitution proceedings, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to J.A. We therefore affirm the restitution order.

III. DISPOSITION The restitution order is affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________ Greenwood, P. J.

____________________________________ Bromberg, J.

H053004 People v. J.A.